Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Corby (Northants) and District Water Bill.
Maidstone Waterworks Bill.
Church House (Westminster) Bill.
Brighton Hove and Worthing Gas Bill.

Bills committed.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (BOSTON CORPORATION) BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme made by the Minister of Health under the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, relating to the Boston Corporation," presented by Sir Hilton Young; and ordered (under Section 1 (9) of the Act) to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN.

Mr. GUY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the introduction of legislation amending the law of Scotland dealing with offences against children and young persons?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): My right hon. Friend does not at present propose
to introduce legislation dealing with offences against children and young persons, particularly as a number of points relating to the subject were dealt with in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932. My right hon. Friend will, however, be glad to discuss with the hon. Member any special points which he has in mind.

Mr. GUY: Have the resolutions that were passed at Edinburgh last November been considered?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes, all these matters have been considered before the decision not to institute legislation at the present moment.

TRAWL FISHING.

Mr. BURNETT: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that trawl skippers have been stopped by the officer of a fishery cruiser when fishing four and five miles off from the nearest land and ordered to heave their trawl gear and proceed further to sea; and will he authorise the Fishery Board to give instructions to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents?

Mr. SKELTON: There is no foundation for the suggestion that it is the practice of the fishery cruisers to order trawlers found fishing four or five miles off land to proceed further to sea. Trawlers are from time to time warned by the cruisers when they are actually on or very close to the limit line but on such occasions no orders are given to the trawlers to heave or lift their gear.

Mr. BURNETT: Would it not have been preferable that, in cases where there is doubt as to the bearings, the skipper should have an opportunity of boarding the trawler and getting confirmation or, alternatively, if an officer of the trawler could have an opportunity of checking the skipper's bearings?

SALMON FISHING.

Lord SCONE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce, during the present Session, legislation relating to salmon fishing in Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend regrets that it will not be possible to proceed with legislation on this subject during the present Session. Discussions with a view to early legislation are pro-
ceeding with various representative bodies concerned.

Lord SCONE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if any such legislation is drafted, it will be comprehensive, consolidating legislation and not merely legislation by reference?

Mr. SKELTON: In all legislation an effort is made to make it simple of understanding.

PERTH PRISON (OFFICERS' QUARTERS).

Lord SCONE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the officers of Perth Prison in regard to the condition of their quarters, in which they allege that the sanitary arrangements and facilities for washing are antiquated and inadequate; and if he will cause an inquiry to be held to investigate these complaints?

Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend is aware that the condition of some of the old prison quarters occupied by officers at Perth Prison is unsatisfactory. These quarters are either being replaced by new buildings or reconstructed as fast as circumstances permit, and, pending the completion of the building programme, washhouse accommodation has been provided for use by the occupants of all the houses. As the facts of the case are fully known to my right hon. Friend, he does not propose to hold any inquiry.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Lord SCONE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among producers of milk in the eastern counties of Scotland, in view of the heavy levy per gallon which they are compelled to pay to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, despite the fact that little surplus milk is produced in that area; and whether he will appoint a committee of investigation under the powers given him by Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931?

Mr. SKELTON: As stated in my reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) on the 12th instant, a complaint has been made on behalf of some of the milk producers in the East of Scotland with respect to the effect of the operation of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme, and the question of referring the complaint to the Committee of Investiga-
tion for Scotland is under consideration. I should be obliged if a further question on this subject were put down next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

REORGANISATION.

Mr. MARTIN: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give the House some information about the present activities of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, the number of areas for which the Commission have submitted schemes because of lack of voluntary schemes, the number of areas which have given notice of intention to contest the matter in a court of law, and the probable date on which the first of such cases will be heard?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the recently published Report of the Commission. I have no information beyond that given in the Report. With regard to the second part of the question, there is no area for which the Commission has yet submitted a scheme under the Act. The third and fourth parts of the question, therefore, do not arise.

Mr. MARTIN: Does the hon. Gentleman expect this matter to come to a head in the near future in view of the fact that he is bringing in a Bill to amend the 1930 Act?

Mr. BROWN: No, Sir.

Mr. DICKIE: Is it the intention of the Government to put an early end to this Socialist experiment in industry?

ROYALTIES (WELFARE LEVY).

Mr. JOHN: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give figures showing the sum paid to coal royalty owners from the proceeds of the mining industry and the sum paid by the coal royalty owners for the provision of pit-head baths, giving figures for each year since 1926, rate per ton, and separately for each coalfield?

Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information, so far as it is available, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

(1) ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.


District.
Estimated Total Amount of Royalties and Wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietors) paid by Colliery Owners in the various Districts of Great Britain for the years 1927 to 1932, and the Average Amount per Ton of Saleable Coal raised.



1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.



Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.



£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.


Scotland
886,000
6.15
838,000
6.22
859,000
6.03
775,000
5.88
703,000
5.8
694,000
5.78


Northumberland
333,000
5.91
310,000
5.74
308,000
5.08
299,000
5.46
298,000
5.72
274,000
5.39


Durham
864,000
5.99
825,000
5.7
929,000
5.72
838,000
5.61
711,000
5.64
658,000
5.68


South Wales and Monmouth
1,607,000
8.34
1,397,000
7.74
1,548,000
7.65
1,340,000
7.63
1,278,000
7.97
1,141,000
7.86


Yorkshire
875,000
4.57
806,000
4.44
865,000
4.44
839,000
4.49
794,000
4.67
777,000
4.84


North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
463,000
4.07
437,000
4.02
475,000
4.00
471,000
4.04
473,000
4.23
447,000
4.3


South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire.
227,000
3.8
203,000
3.72
203,000
3.52
201,000
3.59
198,000
3.67
198,000
3.82


Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire.
520,000
5.35
461,000
5.39
480,000
5.35
450,000
5.25
449,000
5.55
410,000
5.23


Cumberland, North Wales, South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bristol, Forest of Dean, Somerset and Kent.
274,000
5.82
251,000
5.54
245,000
5.18
244,000
5.23
231,000
5.3
228,000
5.3


Great Britain
6,049,000
5.75
5,528,000
5.57
5,912,000
5.47
5,457,000
5.41
5,135,000
5.56
4,827,000
5.53

(2) ROYALTIES WELFARE LEVY.



Amount of Royalties Welfare Levy paid by Royalty Owners in Great Britain for each Financial year ending 31st March, 1927, to 1933 inclusive, and the average rate per ton of Saleable Coal raised during the basal year of assessment ended 30th September previously. Particulars by districts are not available.


—
1926–27 (on year to 30-9-26).
1927–28.
1928–29.
1929–30.
1930–31.
1931–32.
1932–33.





Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.
Total.
Per ton.





£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.
£
d.


Great Britain
…
…
159,447
.24
180,818
.20
184,162
.19
223,955
.21
215,708
.21
202,313
.22
179,963
.20

STATISTICS.

Mr. MARTIN: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state the number of miners employed during the latest quarter for which statistics are available, the number employed during the same quarter of the previous year, the tonnage of coal raised, and the tonnage exported to foreign markets during the periods quoted?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the quarter ended December, 1933, the average number of wage-earners on colliery books was 769,600, the output of coal 55,656,900 tons, and the quantity of coal exported to all destinations 10,211,500 tons. The corresponding figures for the December quarter, 1932, were 776,700, 54,571,200 and 9,736,600 respectively.

EXPORTS (TRADE AGREEMENTS).

Mr. MARTIN: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether there has been any difficulty in supplying British coal to any of those countries with which we have trade agreements embodying clauses concerned with the supply of coal from this country; and, if so, whether he can state the reasons for such difficulties in each case where they occurred?

Mr. E. BROWN: The investigation of a number of formal complaints lodged with my Department under the provisions of the protocols to the various trade agreements has been completed, and it appears therefrom that in some cases delays in shipment have occurred. Other complaints are still under investigation and until that investigation is completed I am unable to say whether the alleged difficulties have in fact occurred.

Mr. MARTIN: Has the investigation shown whether such delays have been due to quota restrictions or to shipping difficulties?

Mr. BROWN: The delays were mainly due to loading.

OVERTIME.

Mr. T. SMITH: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that J. E. Hadley, Castle Gresley, was dismissed from employment at the Granville colliery, Swadlincote, for refusing to work overtime on the conveyor face in the yard seam; whether he will have inquiries made into the circumstances of this case; and what
action he proposes to take to safeguard underground workers who object to working illegal overtime?

Mr. E. BROWN: Inquiry has been made into this case, but I can find no justification for the allegation that the man was dismissed for refusing to work illegal overtime. With regard to the last part of the question, the hon. Member is aware of the action, both legal and otherwise, which is taken by my Department in cases where there is good reason to consider that overtime is being worked improperly. Such action is taken, and will continue to be taken irrespective of the views of the parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, with a view to assisting the export of British textiles to Australia, he will make representations to the Australian Commonwealth Government with a view to securing that early effect is given to Section 9 of the Australian Customs (Industries Preservation) Act, 1921?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the question of Japanese competition. In that event, I would refer him to the statement made by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade on the Debate on the Adjournment on 21st December.

Mr. LEVY: In dealing with the question, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. THOMAS: I always have in mind the interests of Yorkshire.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will my right hon. Friend urge the Australian Government to adopt a more favorable attitude towards our cotton trade in view of the increased prices obtainable for wool?

Mr. THOMAS: I am always anxious to emphasise to the Dominions that they should give preference to this country.

Major PROCTER: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with schemes for supplying the
Indian market with cloths made from Indian cotton and manufactured in Lancashire, the Government would be prepared to share financial responsibility by guaranteeing interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. upon capital raised by public subscription; and whether the Government will favourably consider a freight subsidy for the transportation of the goods from and to India?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): No, Sir.

FOREIGN IMPORT QUOTAS (CARPETS AND BOOTS).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Kidderminster Chamber of Commerce at a recent meeting, sending for his urgent consideration its protest against the quota restrictions on the imports of carpets by the Governments of Denmark and the Netherlands; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. The matter has been taken up with the Governments of Denmark and the Netherlands.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that the reply that he gave a week ago that the manufacturers were entirely satisfied was based upon inaccurate information?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the severe restriction imposed by the Danish Government on the importation of British boots; and whether he will endeavour to secure the same facilities for the imports of boots as those granted to other manufactured goods entering Denmark?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the licences allocated to the trade of this country have been reduced in the first period of this year compared with the same period last year. Representations on the matter are being made to the Danish Government and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the interests of the boot and shoe industry will not be overlooked.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he is aware that the Swiss Government have now fixed the quota for the imports of carpets from this country at 20 tons; how this compares with the quotas fixed by Switzerland for German and Oriental carpet imports; and what action the Government intend to take to secure a reasonable opportunity in the Swiss market for the carpet manufacturers of this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The quota for carpets admitted into Switzerland at the normal rate of duty is understood to be based on actual imports in 1931 when the imports from the United Kingdom were 20 tons. I have no official information as to the quotas fixed for other countries but I have no reason to think that the Swiss Government have discriminated in any way against the United Kingdom. Enquiries are, however, being made as to the possibility of securing facilities for larger imports from this country.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.

Captain STRICKLAND: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the desirability of reversing the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act, so that all foreign goods imported into this country should be distinctively marked as such unless special exemption has been successfully applied for; and will he introduce legislation for this purpose?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received representations in this sense. The matter is under consideration.

Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on some of these things the words "foreign made" are very indistinguishable and very small and that some alteration ought to be made?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If any cases of evasion are brought to my notice, I shall be glad to take action.

Mr. LEVY: I am not necessarily referring to evasion. I am referring to the invisibility of most of these marks.

Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently sent a sample of a foreign cartridge to his Department on which the words "made in Belgium" appeared in very small letters and the name of the supplying firm and the word "London" in very large letters?

MANUFACTURED GOODS (RETAINED IMPORTS).

Mr. MITCHESON: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been draw to the fact that the quantity of retained imports of many classes of competitive manufactured goods in 1933 was either higher, or nearly as high, as 10 years before; and, under these circumstances, what steps be proposes to take to reduce the rate of importation in the case of the goods in question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Import Duties Act, 1932, contains provisions under which increased duties may be imposed upon any class of imports which, after due inquiry, it is found desirable to restrict.

NEW ZEALAND (BRITISH TRADE CATALOGUES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that New Zealand imposes a customs duty and a sales tax on catalogues and advertising literature sent from this country to that Dominion with the object of promoting sales of British goods; and whether he proposes to make representations for the removal of that impost or to place a similar tax on trade circulars, etc., sent to this country from New Zealand?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No customs duty is levied in New Zealand on trade catalogues and price lists of the goods of firms or persons having no established business in that Dominion. Other classes of advertising matter are subject to customs duty. All advertising matter is subject to a sales tax which, however, applies to goods produced in New Zealand as well as to imported goods. Representations were received last year from a number of trade organisations in this country in favour of the admission free of duty, throughout the Empire, of British printed advertising matter which is distributed free. The matter has been brought to the notice of the Government of New Zealand who are considering it.

Captain STRICKLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of imposing similar taxes on advertising material coming into the country from such Dominions as impose a charge against us?

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a fact that
New Zealand has always been most willing and ready to give us every possible facility to sell our goods?

FRANCE (BRITISH TOURIST TRAFFIC).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the denunciation by France of the 1826 Treaty, he can give any indication as to the effect of this step upon British tourist traffic and British sea traffic; and whether, should the treaty lapse at the end of three months, adequate notice will be given to the shipping companies to make other arrangements for their Continental and overseas traffic?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not possible to say precisely what consequences may follow from the lapse of the Conventions, if this takes place, but it is obvious that no advantage could result from interference with the shipping or tourist traffic of either country.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CANADIAN TIMBER).

Captain DOWER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action has been taken to safeguard the preferences accorded to Canadian timber by the United Kingdom-Canadian Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Acting in the spirit of Article 21 of the agreement to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and in order to ensure the provision of adequate opportunities for Canadian suppliers in the United Kingdom market, His Majesty's Government requested the timber interests concerned to arrange that the contract for the 1934 season should be limited to a maximum shipment of not more than 350,000 standards of Russian sawn softwood and should not contain what is known as the "fall clause." The contract has been concluded on this basis.

IMPORTS (SEA TRANSPORT).

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of all foreign manufactured or partly manufactured goods imported into this country in British boats, and also the volume and value imported in foreign boats, in 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available.

RUBBER FOOTWEAR (IMPORTS FROM MALAYA).

Mr. CHORLTON: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of pairs of rubber footwear imported from British Malaya in January, 1934, and in January, 1933, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total number of rubber boots and shoes imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from British Malaya was 1,171 dozen pairs in January, 1934, as against 136 dozen pairs in January, 1933.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can my right hon. Friend explain this extraordinary increase, and is he going to take any action in any way?

Mr. GIBSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that any of these goods are coming in indirectly from Japan through Malaya?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.

BACON IMPORTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the quantity of bacon imported into this country during the month of January, 1934, fell to 646,000 cwts. as against 863,000 cwts. in January, 1933, whilst the value of such imports actually increased from £2,150,000 to £2,440,000; and whether he will consider the desirability of effecting a change in the present method of protecting the home bacon industry in order that some part of the additional money being paid for imported bacon may be secured for the benefit of this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. The quantitative regulation of imports was adopted after mature consideration as the method best calculated to assist the pig producing industry in this country, and I am not prepared to recommend that some other method should now be adopted before the present scheme has had an adequate trial.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the figures contained in the question and does not that mean that the consumer in this country is paying more
for bacon than he ought to do in order to fill the pockets of the foreigner?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not prepared to accept any figures except those which come from my Department.

Mr. DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the figures contained in the question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I neither deny them nor accept them. I have answered the question.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Did I not understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that he was aware that the facts were as stated in the first part of the question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I said that I was aware of the facts in the first part of the question, but the figures occur in the second part.

Mr. FOOT: The first part.

NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING SECURITIES, LIMITED.

Mr. PALING: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government has approved the plans of National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, with regard to closing a number of British shipyards; whether they are aware of the total to be thus closed; whether the plant is being sold abroad or left in this country; and whether the Government has taken into consideration the possible effect of national safety of the activities of this body?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 28 and 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many, and which, shipyards have now been closed through absorption by National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited; for how many years in each case shipbuilding is to be forbidden in these yards; and whether the Government has considered the effect on national safety should a sudden emergency need an expansion of shipping;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the activities of National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited; and whether he can give the House any information as to the effect on British shipping of their negotiations to date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: National Shipbuilders' Security, Limited, is a private undertaking, and Government approval
of its plans is not required. No complete list of the shipyards acquired by the company has been published. I understand, however, that, of shipyards comprising 684 berths existing in January, 1930, the company has acquired yards comprising 116 berths, and that these yards are generally disposed of by the company on terms which involve a restrictive covenant extending in most cases for 40 years. The company have stated that the intention is to maintain the capacity of the industry well ahead of maximum demands, keeping in view national emergencies. At the present time only 21 per cent. of the available shipbuilding berths are occupied. I understand that very little of the plant from yards dismantled by the company has been shipped abroad.

Mr. PALING: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give information as to the effect of the negotiations of National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, on employment in the town of Jarrow; and whether, in view of the sterilisation of the shipyard for 40 years, his Department is considering any plans for the absorption of the large numbers of workers involved?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have no information regarding the progress of the negotiations in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Pearson) and others have brought the position at Jarrow prominently to my right hon. Friend's notice, and such steps as are practicable both through the ordinary placing activities of the exchanges and through the training and transfer schemes have been and will continue to be taken to alleviate the situation. Despite the limited opportunities, which have been an inevitable consequence of the general and widespread depression of the past three years, much has been done in the ways I have mentioned to assist the situation at Jarrow. In addition, valuable work is being carried on in the area by means of occupation and recreational centres.

Mr. PALING: Can the hon. Member say whether any steps are to be taken to prevent the closing down of such works, thereby throwing out of employment tens of thousands of people as has been done in this case?

Mr. PEARSON: Is the hon. Member aware that they do not build ships at Wentworth?

TEXTILE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. CHORLTON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the non-success so far of assistance to recover the cotton export trade, upon which much employment depends, he will consider the institution of an export bounty with that object in view?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Mr. WILLS: 37.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will issue invitations to Members of Parliament for the British Industries Fair?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Arrangements have been made ensuring that a Member of Parliament on presenting at any entrance to the Fair the card of invitation already sent to him will, on payment of 2s., receive in exchange a season ticket giving admission to the Fair daily at all hours and for the period during which the Fair is open either to the public or to trade buyers.

Mr. HANNON: Is the Minister aware that 100 hon. Members of this House have accepted invitations to visit Birmingham next Monday?

Mr. WILLS: Can the Minister say how the fair is progressing?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I understand that a large number of hon. Members are to visit Birmingham. The indications are that in every section of the fair good business is being done and a large number of buyers are attending.

Mr. THORNE: In consequence of the statement that 100 Members of this House have accepted an invitation to visit Birmingham, will the Government give a guarantee that they will be able to keep a House?

HON. MEMBERS: Saturday.

TRADE FACILITIES ACT (LOAN INTEREST).

Major OWEN: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to seek powers to re-guarantee loans granted to industrial companies under
the Trade Facilities Act at a lower rate of interest than that borne by such loans when issued originally?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to cases in which the borrower has an option of early repayment. He is no doubt aware that any such proposal would need legislation. I shall be glad to consider the suggestion, but I cannot give any definite undertaking to introduce such legislation.

STOCK EXCHANGE OPERATIONS.

Mr. COCKS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the endeavour of the President of the United States of America to restrict the use of stock exchanges for purely speculative operations and, in particular, to limit the practice of buying and selling on margins; and if he will consider the advisability of taking similar action in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noticed the proposals of the United States Government, but the conditions obtaining in the United States are so widely different from conditions here that little guidance can be obtained from them.

Mr. COCKS: Why is the National Government so less enterprising than the Government of America in dealing with these gambling evils, in spite of the exhortations of the Minister of Agriculture? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Agriculture?

IMPORT DUTIES (FORWARD CONTRACTS).

Mr. LEWIS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a committee to consider means for mitigating the hardship caused by the sudden imposition of new duties or the sudden alteration of the rate or method of assessment of existing duties in the case of bona fide forward contracts for the importation of goods?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have carefully considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but in view of the considerations which I mentioned when the same question was raised in the Debate on the Ottawa Agreements Bill, I have come to the conclusion that it would not have any useful results.

Mr. LEWIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that under the existing law whatever the restrictive effect on trade a duty may have, a far greater restriction is caused by uncertainty as to the future.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see any possibility of any system under which there can be complete certainty as to the future.

VICE-CONSULATES, DENMARK.

Mr. GIBSON: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons it is proposed to abolish many of the British vice-consulates in Denmark; will he name the vice-consulates it is proposed to close and state whether the vice-consuls at these places are unpaid; and, seeing that the vice-consuls in Denmark have been of great assistance to the trade between this country and Denmark and in view of the necessity of promoting British trade abroad, will he reconsider the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: His Majesty's Government have no intention of closing in the near future any of the existing British vice-consulates in Denmark.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (REVIEW).

Captain WATT: 31.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he is in a position to state when last year's cancelled Territorial review is likely to be held; and if he can say what form it is to take?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir. I am not in a position to make a statement on this matter.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 32.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the hardships connected with the case of Mr. John Hamer, 64, Howarth Avenue, Rawtenstall, Lancashire, a war pensioner; and, if so, will he look into the details of this case again with a view to effecting some amelioration?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): Yes, Sir. Mr. Hamer's first
application was made in November, 1928. His case has been carefully reviewed on more than one occasion by my predecessor and myself in consultation with the most expert technical opinion available both within and outside my Department. As it could not be shown that his unfortunate condition was the result of his war service I regret that it was not possible to award him a pension.

Mr. HANNON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask why this question should have been put upon the Paper. It is wasting Parliamentary time, and the matter could have been settled in the Department.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. JOHN: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the law governing the awarding of compensation to victims of silicosis needs amending; that the provisions under the schemes of 1928 and 1931 are inadequate, and that large numbers of miners suffering from silicosis are deprived of compensation if they have not been working in the process within a period of three years; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation amending the present schemes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The Miners' Federation have made representations to me in favour of reviewing the arrangements in force under the present scheme and I have written to the Mining Association on the subject. On receipt of their reply I will consider whether any amendment of the scheme is necessary and I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will not be lost sight of.

POLITICAL PARTIES (UNIFORMS).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation prohibiting the wearing of uniforms by political parties?

Mr. WHITESIDE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain political parties in this country wear distinctive uniforms; and whether, as this procedure has frequently led to disorder in other countries, he proposes to take any action?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to answer these questions together. Representations on this subject have reached me from many quarters. The aspect of the problem which has been causing me most concern is the provocative effect of the wearing of such uniforms in streets and public places and the increasing number of street disorders which have occurred in consequence. The growing danger of public disturbance which the police attribute to the wearing of what may conveniently be called political uniforms is shown by the fact that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis reports that in the first six months of 1933 there were in the Metropolitan Police District 11 disturbances of a political character attributed to this cause while in the last six months of the year there have been no less than 22 such disturbances. The whole question is engaging my serious consideration.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some European States have already taken action in this connection?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, it is quite true.

Mr. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he thinks the Government will be able to come to a decision upon this very important question?

Mr. MABANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the wearing of foreign political uniforms in this country; and has his attention been drawn to the fact that two uniformed Nazis landed in this country yesterday, and will he see that nothing of the sort occurs again?

FOREIGN EMBASSIES AND LEGATIONS (DEMONSTRATIONS).

Earl WINTERTON: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the fact that small groups of persons have, in recent years, organised actual and attempted demonstrations in pursuance of their political views in front of various embassies and legations in London; and whether, to avoid the wrong impression thus created in foreign countries and the discourtesy shown to representatives of friendly Powers, he
will introduce legislation making the organisation of, or participation in, such demonstrations illegal?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the circumstances to which my noble Friend refers. I am informed, however, by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police have not hitherto experienced any special difficulties in dealing with demonstrations of the kind referred to under the provisions of the existing law.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, if that is so, why it is that no prosecutions have followed, except in cases where there have been assaults on the police, because of the grave discourtesy which has been shown to foreign representatives. Why have not these people been prosecuted, if the police are able to deal with the situation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that the general effort of the police is to keep any demonstrations of this kind under restraint, and, as far as I know, the police have taken such action as is within their power in dealing with this problem, but the matter will be kept under close observation.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is still a free country?

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).

Major JESSON: 38.
asked the Attorney-General whether he will recommend to the Lord Chancellor that the composition of the advisory committees for justices of the peace be changed every five years and thereby ensure future appointments being made more in conformity with present day and changing conditions?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Each advisory committee is reviewed every three years by my noble and learned Friend who then considers what changes, if any, should be made in its composition.

Major JESSON: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in many districts there has been no change in the composition of these advisory boards
for over 20 years? Does he not think that it is quite time they were decomposed.

Captain HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will communicate to my learned and noble Friend such information as is in his possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mrs. SHAW: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated cost of benefit at the rate of 3s. in respect of dependent children between 14 and 16 years?

Mr. HUDSON: It is not possible to say precisely what would be the cost of raising the allowance for those children only whose ages are between 14 and 16, but on the basis of the finance assumed for Part I of the Unemployment Bill it would probably be between £50,000 and £100,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. MITCHESON: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the approximate cost of restoring the personal allowances in respect of Income Tax to the level which prevailed prior to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement by giving any estimate of the effect on the yield of the Income Tax of any change in its existing graduation.

Mr. COCKS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the committee on the simplification of Income Tax law which was appointed in October, 1927, has not yet presented its report, he will take steps to expedite its proceedings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 27th November, 1933, to the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) when it was stated that the Committee hoped to complete its labours in the course of the present year.

Mr. COCKS: Is not six and a half years too long a time for them to decide
any Parliamentary question? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the Rip Van Winkles are still alive?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have a new Chairman of the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member does not appreciate that simplification of Income Tax is a very complicated matter.

Mr. FLEMING: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of unmarried persons at present paying Income Tax and supporting an invalid or unemployed sister or brother without being allowed any rebate on that account; and whether any steps will be taken to deal with this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Under Section 22 of the Finance Act, 1920, an allowance of £25 is given to any taxpayer who maintains at his own expense either a widowed mother or a relative who is incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself, provided the person maintained has not a total income of over £50 a year. I regret that there are no Income Tax statistics measuring the numbers of cases in which this allowance has been claimed or granted.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is able to indicate the proportion of the business done by co-operative societies, retail and wholesale, with non-members during the last year for which figures are available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The official form of return which Industrial and Provident Societies are required to send annually to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies shows the total sales of the societies without any apportionment as between members and non-members, respectively. I am therefore unable to give my hon. Friend the information he desires.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: Are any steps being taken in this connection?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend will forward any suggestions, together with the advantages which are likely to accrue, I am sure they will receive consideration.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not most desirable that the House and the public should know how much mutuality there is in this matter and how much members of the ordinary general public who are not co-operators subscribe towards finding this dividend which is free from tax?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Income Tax is payable equally on profits from members and non-members. If the hon. Member has any suggestion to make I shall be only too happy to consider it.

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 51.
(for Sir PHILIP DAWSON): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the actual surplus accruing to retail co-operative societies in 1932; the total amount of tax for which these societies were assessed for the corresponding financial year; and the amount that would have been paid by a normal trading concern making equivalent profits?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will find particulars of the trading of the retail co-operative societies, showing the surplus derived therefrom, in Part III of the Annual Reports of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. I am not in a position to say how much Income Tax has been paid by the retail societies, but as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware the Committee of Inquiry into the position of the co-operative societies in relation to Income Tax give in the Minutes of Evidence and their Report (Command Paper 4260) estimates for the whole co-operative movement of the amount of Income Tax paid before the law was altered in 1933 and the amount now payable following last year's legislation.
It would be impossible to make any comparison of the nature suggested in the concluding part of the question. Apart from the difficulty of deciding what is to be considered a normal trading concern it has to be borne in mind that in so far as profits are the income of any individual the yield of Income Tax depends not only on the amount of the profits, but also on his total income and family responsibilities.

FOREIGN LOANS.

Sir ALAN McLEAN: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the public authorities of
58 foreign States are wholly or partly in default on 130 loans financed with British money; and whether he will ask his advisers to re-examine the principle of lending to foreign borrowers with the object of creating British exports before he considers any relaxation of the embargo upon the issue of foreign loans here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that before any fresh decision is taken in regard to the embargo on the issue of foreign loans here the matter will be examined in the light of all relevant circumstances.

Sir A. McLEAN: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the will ascertain the purposes for which money invested by British nationals in loans raised in Britain by Brazilian State, provincial, and municipal authorities since 1910 has been used in Brazil in order that it may be known to what extent such foreign lending has been of advantage to the United Kingdom export trade, after taking into account the losses made by those who invested in the loans now in default?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not be possible to ascertain to what extent the proceeds of the loans referred to have been expended in this country. In many cases the proceeds were used to refund existing indebtedness and for this or other reasons cannot be allocated to specific items of expenditure.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can arrange that the Debate promised on the Committee of Imperial Defence shall take place after the Estimates for the Services have been published but before any have been debated?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Conversations are taking place through the usual channels with a view to arranging a Debate on the Committee of Imperial Defence. I am afraid, however, that I cannot pledge myself to arrange such a Debate before any of the Estimates for the Defence Forces have been considered by the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that we debate a proportion of the money spent on the three Services on the first Service Vote taken in the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that that question must be addressed, not to me, but to the authorities who deal with the Standing Orders of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to persuade them to do so?

HOUSING BILL.

Earl WINTERTON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the Housing Bill will be introduced; and if arrangements will be made to allow a reasonable interval between the printing and presentation of the Bill and its Second Reading, in view of the importance of the questions likely to be involved in it?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not yet possible to fix a date for the introduction of this Bill. I appreciate the point raised by my right hon. Friend in the second part of the question, and can assure him that it will not be overlooked.

CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is prepared to make so as to secure the introduction of the Bill for facilitating the building of the new Cunarder and the passage of such Bill through its various stages by the earliest possible date; and whether, pending its passage into law, provisional financial arrangements can be made with the companies concerned so as to enable them to resume work on the Cunarder 534, as by this means from 9,000 to 10,000 men throughout the country would be put back into employment?

Sir Nicholas GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether in the event of it being decided to lay down a sister ship arrangements can be made that that ship will come to the Tyne?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). It should be put down on the Paper to the proper Minister. With reference to the question put by
the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I understood that he wished to consult me on the arrangement of business. The Government do consider that this matter is urgent, and I have asked my right hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to be good enough to open up negotiations with the Opposition with the idea that the Money Resolution might be put on the Order Paper for Thursday of this week. It all depends on the convenience of the House. If that is done, the Bill will then be introduced without delay, and the ordinary stages will be gone through. That will give ample opportunity for a full discussion of the subject matter of the Bill.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In considering the question of the enormous unemployment on the Tyne—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. ATTLEE: I think that the arrangement suggested by the Prime Minister will probably suit us on this side of the House.

AERIAL GAS ATTACK (PUBLIC SAFETY).

Captain GUEST: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether any education of the masses is being undertaken as to how they should behave in case of gas attack from the air?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 23rd November, 1933. The problem of protection has engaged the attention of successive Governments, and precautions are being taken to safeguard the civil population as far as possible against air attack.

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGES AND COMMODITY PRICES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to enter into conversations with the Government of the United States with a view to securing a stable standard of value for the currencies of the two countries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to suppose that any such conversations
as are suggested by my right hon. Friend would, in present circumstances, lead to any fruitful result.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome any conversations if they are put forward?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should welcome any conversations if I thought they were likely to lead to useful results.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 54 and 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, with a view to facilitating a further rise in world commodity prices and the subsequent stabilisation of both prices and international exchanges, he will consider the advisability of restoring a free market in bullion gold at the price of 140s. per ounce;
(2) Whether the monetary policy of His Majesty s Government continues to be based on the currency resolutions of the Genoa Conference; and whether he is prepared to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States of America, when conditions are favorable, with a view to the establishment of a gold exchange standard on the lines laid down by those resolutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The currency resolutions of the Genoa Conference have for the present only an academic interest. For the views of His Majesty's Government on questions of the monetary standard, of the necessity for raising prices and of the ultimate stabilisation of prices and exchanges I would refer my hon. Friend to the various statements already made and in particular to the joint Declaration by the Delegations of the British Commonwealth on the adjournment of the World Conference last year. I can only add that His Majesty's Government has constantly under examination all methods of achieving the monetary policy then agreed upon which appear at any time to be practicable.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can we take it that His Majesty's Government are prepared to return to a gold exchange standard as soon as they are satisfied that foreign nations are prepared to co-operate with us in working it satisfactorily?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should not like to add an impromptu statement to the carefully considered statement I have made on this subject.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: When the Government are contemplating the establishment of a gold standard will they take measures to demand special taxation from those holders of gold shares which have appreciated so much in consequence of the rise in the price of gold?

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In view of the repeated failure of a gold standard, have the Government no alternative in consideration?

WATER SUPPLIES, DORSETSHIRE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 58.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received any reports of water shortage, either actual or anticipated, in Dorsetshire; and, if so, which places are affected?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has received such reports in respect of the Sturminster Rural District, and the parish of Bere Regis in the Wareham-and-Purbeck Rural District. Some improvement has been made in the supply to Bere Regis by the deepening of the public well and by obtaining temporary supplies. A comprehensive scheme for their district has been adopted by the Sturminster Rural District Council.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Have the Government any intention of dealing with the question of the shortage of water on a national basis?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the scheme to which he has referred will protect this particular district during the forthcoming months?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: These are matters which might be discussed on Thursday.

PALESTINE (MUNICIPAL ORDIANANCE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new municipal ordinance for Palestine is now in operation why the Tel Aviv Municipality has been deprived of the power to levy rates on unoccupied land as heretofore; and why the women of Haifa and Jerusalem are not to vote while those in Tel Aviv may?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am replying for my right hon. Friend. The Municipal Corporations Ordinance of Palestine was enacted on the 12th of January. In Section 102 (1) it is provided that a municipal council, with the approval of the District Commissioner, may levy a municipal property rate to be assessed, inter alia, upon the rateable value of unoccupied land, and I have no information that power to impose such a rate has been withheld in the case of the Municipal Council of Tel Aviv. The Ordinance provides for the grant of votes to women in Tel Aviv because this is known to be in accordance with the wishes of the local community. In the case of Haifa and Jerusalem, and other municipal areas, the ordinance provides machinery by which an alteration in the qualifications of voters, including the grant of the vote to women, may be made in cases where a resolution in favour of such a step is passed by a two-thirds majority of the Council.

AFRICA (FAUNA AND FLORA).

Mr. LEWIS: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government propose to ratify the convention concluded at the International Conference for the protection of the fauna and flora of Africa in November last; and if the Governments of any other countries have yet ratified this convention?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I am not yet in a position to make an announcement as to ratification by His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is necessary in the first instance to obtain the views of the Colonial Governments concerned. A decision will be taken as soon as these views are available. No other Governments have yet ratified the convention.

CHILE (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the default of Chile on all her obligations to British investors, he will cause an analysis to be made and then state in due course the estimated aggregate amount of the profit on a basis of 7½ per
cent. profit on the Board of Trade record of goods and services exported to Chile since 1886, to be computed as a set-off for the lost British capital savings lent to the Chilean Government since 1886?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that such a calculation, even if it could be made with any precision, would serve any useful purpose.

FIXED TRUSTS.

Mr. CULVERWELL: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what precautions are being taken by general statutory powers, or under the Companies Act, to render it difficult for unscrupulous persons to defraud the public by the flotation of fixed trusts on a limited liability basis?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Burnett) on the 15th February.

Mr. BURNETT: May I ask whether a document offering for sale shares in a fixed trust is a prospectus; and whether the holder is entitled to the remedies under Section 37 of the Companies Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a legal question to which I am not competent to reply.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into the whole question of the relation between fixed trusts and the company laws?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That has already been dealt with.

BILL PRESENTED.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the exportation of horses, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Henderson Stewart; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Applin, Major Astor, Mr. Buchan, Mr. Isaac Foot, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Holford Knight, Sir Ian Macpherson, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Whiteside, and Sir John Withers; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the County Courts Acts, 1888 to 1924, and certain other enactments relating to county courts." [County Courts (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1934.

Estimates presented,—of Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army for the financial year 1934 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1934).

Estimates presented,—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1935, with Memorandum [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1934 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Eastwood and Mr. McKeag; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Howard and Sir John Pybus.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Firearms Act (1920) Amendment Bill): Major Astor, Mr. Brocklebank, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Grimston, Mr. Hacking, Mr. Janner, Captain Lumley, Major Sir Alan McLean, Sir Assheton Pownall, and Mr. Thomas Williams.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Powers of Disinheritance Bill): Lieut.-Commander Agnew, Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, the Attorney-General, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Janner, Mr. Well-wood Johnston, Mr. Leckie, Mr. McEntee, Mr. Moreing, Miss Rathbone, the Solicitor-General, Sir Luke Thompson, Miss Ward, Sir John Wardlaw-Milne, and Sir John Withers.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

DEATH OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS.

3.30 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep regret with which this House has learned the news of the death of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Royal Highness the Duke of Brabant, the heir to the throne of Belgium, the profound sympathy of this House with Her Majesty the Queen of the Belgians and the Royal Family, and with the Government and People of Belgium.
We have all, this House and the nation at large, been so deeply touched, especially by the circumstances attending the death of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, that I am sure I need utter very few sentences in commendation of the Resolution that I have moved.
The late King held a unique place among the Rulers of Europe. No envy shadowed him; none of the pride and circumstance of Imperial splendour kept him in the glare of light. Suddenly Europe was maddened by blaring trumpets. War was loose, and like a rock in the river Belgium stood right in the middle of the torrent of marching feet. But at the head of Belgium was the King. From that day this quiet, unostentatious man, unshakable in his devotion to national liberty and his loyalty to obligation, became the embodiment of his people and one of the most powerful personal factors in the conduct of the War. As the months passed he grew in stature in the eyes of all who had dealings with His Majesty. At first valued mainly as an ally, he came to be regarded as a friend richly endowed with the qualities which surely may be set amidst the most kingly of all human qualities. He was gracious, he was reliable, he was patient in suffering and he was restrained in triumph.
During the whole of that terrible time he was faithful to the charge of his Kingship. In him the virtues of the man became the honours of the King. He carried his dignities in such a way as to increase the genial intimacy of his friendship. He loved to be here in this country; he was at home with [...]s. Nothing gave him more pleasure and con-
tentment than those almost casual calls when, everyone at his ease, he held converse on politics, its far-away dreams, its hard-won achievements, its difficult roads; on science, on art, and occasionally on the solemn concerns of life and death. Those qualities he shared with her who shared his life, his position, his work, his aims, and I venture in this humble tribute to his memory to mingle thoughts of special sympathy for her whose heart is now grieving at his untimely death.
To all who knew him intimately he revealed a keen mind concerned above all with his own people, their aspirations and their social conditions, and he showed a close intimacy with their ordinary life, their factories, their places of work and their domestic firesides. As our late Ambassador said of him, "He was always tremendously interested. Nothing of any importance was ever mentioned in his presence without his showing a very keen interest in it." How well during the years and the fortunes of his reign did he carry out the pledge in the first Speech that he delivered from the Throne. "The Sovereign," he said, "must be unceasingly attentive to the voice of the country and watch with sympathy over the fate of the humble. He is the servant of the law and the guardian of social peace."
Reviewing these stimulating memories one can indeed but say, bidding him farewell, a fine man, a great King, a noble citizen.

3.36 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: On behalf of the Opposition, I rise to support the Motion. I think that but few words are required of me. We are all alike moved by our common human sympathy when the hand of death suddenly descends upon a family and takes away the husband from the wife, the father from the children. It is a daily event in the world around us, but it never loses its poignant appeal, for it touches us all so near. Everyone will join in sincere sympathy with the bereaved members of the Belgian Royal Family. But the untimely death of Albert, King of the Belgians, our friend and ally, is more than a domestic tragedy. It has taken away from the world a man who filled greatly a great position. He was the head of a friendly nation, the constitutional ruler of a democratic State, the man who in adversity and war
displayed high courage and constancy and in the difficult times of peace, wisdom and understanding. Therefore, it is fitting that we, the representatives of the Commons of England, should also extend our sympathy to the Belgian people, our old friends and Allies, and trust that the new ruler, and his people may be spared any return of the dark shadows against which the late King's high qualities shone out so brightly.

3.40 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: We are enjoined to speak naught but good of the dead. That injunction it is easy to obey on this occasion. King Albert's was a character to evoke at all times only words of praise. He had the qualities of chief value in one born to a throne—honour, courage, good will, sound judgment and untiring devotion to duty. In conversation he was direct, simple, prudent. There was a moment in 1914 when King Albert was the pivot on which world history turned. His action was decisive for Belgium. Belgian action was decisive for us. British action was decisive for the War. His letter to King George appealing to definite treaty obligations and the stand taken by Belgium united our Cabinet, united this nation, united the whole British Commonwealth. It fell to my lot to be the Minister responsible for caring for the welfare of the 250,000 Belgian refugees who came to this country in the first weeks of the War, and after the Armistice, to go to Belgium as special commissioner appointed to aid in her restoration. Then, and since, I was able to see at close quarters how greatly the Belgian people depended upon his wise guidance, his quiet authority and how completely he had won their affection. He might have said in the famous words of Queen Elizabeth:
Though God hath raised me [...]igh, yet this I count the glory of my crown, that I have reigned with your loves.
The British people will extend to Belgium in this hour of sorrow and anxiety the hand of friendship and consolation.

Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to convey to His Majesty the expression of the deep regret with which this House has learned the news of the death of His Majesty the King of the Belgians,
and to pray His Majesty that he will be graciously pleased to express to His Royal Highness the Duke of Brabant, the heir to the throne of Belgium, the profound sympathy of this House with Her Majesty the Queen of the Belgians and the Royal Family, and with the Government and People of Belgium.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee. [8th Allotted Day.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 36.—(Provision and maintenance of training courses.)

3.47 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 31, line 41, to leave out "with the approval of the Minister," and to insert:
in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister.
I rise to address the Committee in difficult circumstances but if hon. Members will behave themselves they will be able to hear what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] After what we have just listened to from the Prime Minister and others, the levity of hon. Members seems, to a simple member of the working-class, something which passes all human understanding. This Amendment is intended to ensure that the provisions of the Clause with regard to training centres shall be carried out under regulations, which shall be laid before Parliament and to which objection may be taken. It may seem at first glance that there is not much in the Amendment but I assure hon. Members that this is a very serious matter. The training centres conceived by the Minister and those responsible for this Bill will not touch the fringe of the serious problem with which we are faced, particularly in the great industrial centres. Tens of thousands of young men, the best asset which any country could have—for there is no finer raw material in the world than the youth of Britain—are being allowed to go to waste. This great problem goes beyond economics. It touches every human attribute and goes right into the lives of the common people of our country.
Just think of the situation as we see it, we who come from working-class constituencies, we who live among the working class, we who are members of the working class, we who live the life of the working class. As we see it, there is absolutely no hope for the youth held out by the present régime, and the Government's idea of work centres gives no encouragement to the youth of the working class to take advantage of them. They abhor them, and there is nothing in them that would induce them to leave the life which they are living at the moment, which is all wrong, because at the moment they have nothing to do. All over Britain to-day the cry of the mothers of these young men is reaching well nigh to Heaven, "What am I to do with my boy?" And along comes the Minister of Labour, than whom, in my opinion, we could get none more sympathetic, but it is more than sympathy that we require here. I have asked of every Minister who has held that post since I came to this House 12 years ago that he should have courage to face up to this problem of the youth of this country running riot, with nothing to do, with no aim in life.
We on these benches suggest that the Minister should lay these regulations before Parliament in order that we can discuss them and in order that he should get the benefit of our experience as workers who understand the situation and who are dealing with it when we are not in the House, but at home for the week-end. We have to face this problem. We have mothers coming to us whose husbands may be comfortably circumstanced and may even belong to the professions. Here is what the principal of St. Andrew's University, Sir James Irvine, has said. I have quoted this in the House before, but it is well worth repeating here now. In the middle of last year, in his address to the students of St. Andrew's University, Sir James Irvine said that schoolmasters and schoolmistresses in Scotland are now faced with a unique position, because when fathers, mothers, or guardians come to them and ask what profession they would suggest for a young man or young woman who is now qualified for a university career, the schoolmaster or schoolmistress is forced to say, "I really cannot tell." Formerly, it was a case
of the artisan not knowing what to put his child to, because every position was occupied, but now the same holds good of the professions. In Scotland alone we have over 3,000 who have passed through our universities and who are M.A. and B.Sc., for whom there is no employment.

Mr. ALBERY: On a point of Order. Did you rule last night, Sir Dennis, that these Amendments were to be taken one by one, or did you rule that there should be a general discussion? I understood that you said there was not to be a general discussion on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. I said that I did not think this was an Amendment on which the Clause could be discussed as a whole. The hon. Member who has been moving the Amendment, as I have followed him, has been giving what he regarded as arguments in favour of a different scheme under which the arrangements for these training centres should be made by means of regulations which would have to come before and be discussed by this House. To that extent I have not thought it necessary to interrupt him so far, but I think he has been perhaps a little bit discursive, and I am sure he will bear in mind what I have said and not go too much into the question of the advisability or otherwise of training centres of some kind, but restrict his argument to the question of the advisability or otherwise of the regulations for these training centres being brought before Parliament for discussion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Thank you, Sir Dennis; I will respect your Ruling. There is one other point that I wish to raise to justify the necessity for the Minister bringing these regulations before the House, and it is the only justification for our coming here. The great thing that is held out about this country is that this is a democratic country, and that the idea of our House of Commons is that the laws that are made here are made, not by the Government, but by the Members of the House of Commons. That is the meaning of having an Opposition. Now we are the Opposition, constituted legally and recognised accordingly, and, of course, it is irksome to our opponents when the contributions that we make do not correspond with theirs, but it has always been held that that was the outstanding glory of the
British House of Commons, that irrespective of how offensive even or how revolutionary the point of view that any Member wished to put, this House would always see that, he could put his point of view. I hope hon. Members away up in the corners opposite, far removed from the common man, will allow me to proceed with this Amendment, because we desire to retain as far as is humanly possible the power of the Members of this House over the Government and over the Ministers.
We see what is going on even in our own country. All the power of Parliament is gradually being fleeced from us. We are not going to sit under that without putting up a fight. The last man in the House and in the Government at the moment who would wish to do that is the present Minister of Labour. Yet he is doing it. We have got to counteract the spirit that is abroad. The Minister is the victim of it; he simply has not the strength of character that we wish to implant in him to resist this evil spirit that is abroad, and to allow us here to render our contribution to the common weal of our native land. That is why we want the regulations to be brought here.
I want to give an impression of what, in our view, these training centres ought to be. We have one of the principal training centres at Carstairs. I remember the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) when in the Labour Government questions were raised regarding the Carstairs training centre. It never can operate in the interests of the worker at all. I have had instances of young men who were forced to go there, or else be threatened with being cut off from the Employment Exchange. The present Minister of Labour, to his everlasting credit, gave me a concession that they need not go unless they wished. Nevertheless, if they care, they can force the boys to go to those places. If the places were such as to convince the youth that there was a future for them, that there was something worth striving for, it would not be necessary to drive them there. They go there to repair boots, to learn to cut hay, to learn to mend chairs and to learn to work pneumatic drills. It was because of that that we came along, as these individuals were sent as cheap labour to cut out our folk, so many of
whom are now on the streets. My suggestion with regard to the training centres is this: we are living in a peculiar age—an age of plenty. It is not necessary—

Mr. MOLSON: On a point of Order. I respectfully suggest that the Amendment which has been moved is to insert "in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister." The hon. Member is criticising training centres altogether, and I respectfully suggest that it is not relevant to this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that I can take that view, but I had in my mind that the hon. Member was passing rather to the future. If he wants to discuss administration of the training centres in the past, that would be out of order, but if he confines his remarks to centres to be set up under this Clause and recommendations for the future administration, that is the point of the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It can be seen again that this is the spirit that is abroad. It is not Members on these benches who object to the Chairman. It is always from other benches that attention is drawn to the fact that you, Sir Dennis, are not doing your job. That is what it means.

The CHAIRMAN: The best spirit will be spoilt if the hon. Member swamps it with too many words.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The point I was making was that if we had these regulations before the House, then we would lay before the Minister a method which would solve the problem. That, surely, is worth the most serious consideration of this Committee. What is the use of these training centres with the regulations which hold good at the moment? We want to get the opportunity of placing new regulations, which would mean new ideas. I hope that there will be an opportunity, for the first time in history, so that instead of education which reaches to our Universities being the privilege of a few, it will be the right of the many, instead of those young men going to training centres, which undoubtedly sounds to the young men of my class like taking them to training camps and militarising them. It would be different
if you held up to the youth of the working class the possibility of a university training. In my experience I have seen a young man, 21 years of age, who, as soon as he had finished his time as an engineer, instead of roaming the streets unemployed, like the average young man, went to Oxford University and sat through his examination alongside the son of a duke, and alongside the son of a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's son passes, the son of the duke fails, and the son of the engineer passes with honours and distinction. I hope that the possibility of getting the best education will be put within the power of the young men of my class. It is not simply that those young fellows at Oxford and Cambridge have been mentally developed. They have been politically developed.
I have heard Members of this House bemoaning the fate of the young men in this country because they do not get plenty of good hard work to-day, and saying that it was a bad thing. I never held that view. It is not true. I have been associated with practically every university in this country, and what do I see? There are no better specimens of humanity in the world, for they are being mentally and physically cared for, getting the best training, mental and physical, that this country can give its youth. I hold that the Minister of Labour has a glorious opportunity by accepting this Amendment, and putting into practice the high ideal that is possible in this age, but which has never been possible at any other time in the history of the world. As I said last night, three of the biggest engineering and shipbuilding employers agreed that it was essential to find something different for tens of thousands of our youths who will never be employed in shipbuilding and engineering again. That is how I see it, and how the Minister of Labour has got to face this question—give the youth of this country an opportunity to try to attain something. I would not impose myself on the Committee on this Amendment to the extent I am doing unless I believed in my innermost being that this is the way out. If it were followed, we have no idea of the heights which the future generation of Britain would attain. Think what the youth of the working classes of this country have attained in trying circumstances. What would they not attain,
given equal opportunity to that of the privileged section of our country?

4.13 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: In rising to support my hon. Friend in the appeal he has made, I am sure that everyone who heard his speech will realise how deeply he feels upon this matter. This Clause passes to the Unemployment Assistance Board certain powers to set up training camps, and to submit to the Minister certain plans for his approval. The Minister will then approve or not, but it is left to the Minister. If these camps are set up, it will mean a big change. I know very well that the Committee will accept them, and I am not going to deal with the wisdom or otherwise of the camps. The point I want to impress upon the Committee is this: Seeing the big step that we are taking, Parliament at least ought to have control of this matter. Whatever plans are submitted to the Minister, he ought not to have the power to approve or otherwise without the sanction of Parliament. Therefore, we are asking in this Amendment that the regulations shall be put before the House of Commons, so that we can examine them in all their phases, and determine whether they are right or wrong. I think that the Committee would be well advised to give this due consideration. There is nothing to be afraid of. If the Assistance Board are dealing with the matter properly, then no objection can be taken when the matter comes before us. If, on the other hand, they are not, and we have not the power to deal with them, certain things might happen which would act detrimentally to all. As this board is the biggest thing that has been before us for a long time, we ask that Parliament should keep control.
All Members are interested in these schemes and are anxious that the men who are sent to the training centres should have every possible help so that they can prepare themselves to be ready to take their place in industry if employment improves. No one knows what will be done by the Advisory Committee. We strongly object to its appointment for Parliament will have no control over it or over the suggestions which they will put before the Minister. I do not say that the Minister of Labour will not act as well as any other fair-minded individual, but there is always a
feeling that if these regulations are left in the hands of one man they will not be as good as regulations which are examined by Parliament. We are afraid to put in the hands of a certain body of men powers which we think ought to be under the control of Parliament. We want Parliament to have an opportunity of determining what is the best course to follow in the regulations.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to add my voice to those that have spoken in favour of the Amendment. I have been impressed in the last few weeks by the great number of men who have come to me with the fear that in connection with these training centres there will be set up a sort of semi-military organisation. I do not believe that for a moment, but there is a genuine fear in the minds of the ordinary workers that something of that kind will be done under this Clause. If the regulations were made subject to the approval or disapproval of the House a good deal of that suspicion would be allayed. This Clause may have a greater effect than we imagine, for it must be taken in association with Clause 39. If the regulations are so severe that a man feels he must refuse to go to a training centre, he can be treated under Clause 39 as a difficult case. For a great many years it has been possible under the present Act to send a man to a training centre, but the power has not been used in a general way. We cannot discuss on this Amendment the question of training centres in general, but I may say, in passing, that they might be useful for the youngest sections—those of 18 or 19 years of age. There is a grave fear on the part of men of 35 and upwards that they will come under the training centre scheme. I have always thought it is a waste of time to send the older men to training centres. That fear would be eased if the men felt that Parliament could make itself heard on any regulations that were made. I hope that in view of these real suspicions the Minister will feel that he can accept the Amendment.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Amendment, and I ask the Committee also to do so. The Clause does not deal with training under the Ministry.
That ought to be borne in mind. Anyone who knows anything about training under the Ministry knows its great value as well as its great dangers. The Minister himself would be the first to admit that. For my connection with training under the Ministry I would not make any apology, especially as in most cases it has been of a voluntary nature. Some men, it is true, have asked to be sent to centres sometimes, and they have used them mainly as jumping off grounds, after a feed or two, to get into other parts of the country. I know so much, however, of cases of men who have benefited that I would be unfair to myself if I condemned training under the Ministry. This Clause does not deal with that training, and the Committee ought to be aware of what it is doing. Apparently the Assistance Board is to have power not only to fix the amount of payments for people but to determine who shall be trained. I do not find anywhere in the Bill that it is to be a voluntary matter; indeed, the Bill gives me the impression that we are giving the board power to compel men to go to some kind of training. That would be a grave power to give even to the Minister, but to give it to a body that is, as we contend, outside the control of the House, is not only fraught with great danger but is likely to have results, if it is not kept under control by means of some kind of regulation, that hon. Members will have reason to regret. This body will be able to make arrangements for training and send men for training to camps of some kind. We do not know yet what class of work they will be called upon to do. The board will have power to
contribute towards the cost of the provision and maintenance of such courses by the Minister or by any local authority or other body.
What will be those other bodies?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): There is an Amendment dealing with that.

Mr. LAWSON: I am showing the general powers that this board apparently will have. It has to make arrangements later not only for the training, but
for the continuance of the training and instruction afforded in connection with any such training course by entering into agreements with local authorities.
They can make arrangements with some other bodies. The right hon. Gentleman says there is an Amendment dealing with that, but what I am saying is relevant to the importance of the regulations being laid before Parliament. What are those other bodies which are mentioned? As the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) said, one of the dangers of this Clause is that it is connected with the Clause dealing with cases of special difficulty. Suppose this board, either by training or by some class of work which was supposed to be training, made arrangements to make certain things, and in the opinion of the men who have been sent to the centres the making of the things meant that they were infringing upon the work of some class of people in the immediate neighbourhood or some other part of the country. They might say, "We have been asked to be trained, but we are making things that are undermining the wage rates of other people." The Unemployment Assistance Board, which is in control of the training, would say, "We order you to do this work, and you must do it." The men would then say, "We will not, for by doing that work we should be undermining standards of wages." Having refused, they are declared to be cases of special difficulty.
It may not be in the mind of the Minister that they should be cases of special difficulty, but there is the power in the board to declare them such if they refuse to carry out the work. They may be the most decent kind of men who would refuse to do this work, men who would like to be trained, but who would object to being called upon to perform a duty which is against the principles for which they have spent their lives. In that case they will be refused payments and allowances. The House is being asked to hand over to a body which is already placed out of the control of Parliament wholesale training powers. We are asking for very little in saying that these Regulations should be submitted to this House before they come into operation, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will agree with us. We should be able to keep them under the periodic influence of the House, so that we may have an opportunity of determining the conditions under which those people will have to work.

4.31 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I was very glad, though not in the least surprised, to hear the well-deserved tribute which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) paid to the general value of training centres. With the experience he has had in these matters I think I can satisfy him that the acceptance of this Amendment, so far from assisting the object he has in view, which I am sure is to improve their usefulness, would have precisely the opposite effect. I can assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that there is no question of an evil spirit being abroad; my one object is to secure an entirely different spirit throughout the country. The Amendment asks that instead of arrangements being made by the board, with the approval of the Minister, Regulations should be made by the Minister. What that means is that every detail of the day-to-day administration would have to be the subject of Regulations. This is not the time to discuss the general value of training centres, but they could not be run if we had to lay down precise and rigid Regulations for running them. There is the instance which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street gave. He said complaints might arise that work was being done which meant undercutting workmen employed in some industry outside. We could not make a general Regulation about a matter like that, whereas if a specific instance were brought forward we might very properly be called upon to deal with it. Therefore, to have rigid Regulations would make the whole day-to-day working and management of the training centres absolutely impossible.
Once regulations are made with the approval of Parliament they can only be altered with the approval of Parliament. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said that he has many new ideas. I am sure he has, and I shall be only too glad to hear them, but it does not in the least follow that to-morrow his ideas will not be even better, and if his ideas are to be embodied in regulations passed and approved by this House they can only be altered by other regulations to be subsequently passed by the House. The proper course of action if any hon. Member has a grievance, or any complaint that something is being done which is inconsistent with the duty of the Minister
or the conduct of these centres, is for him to attack the Minister, and the occasion for that is provided on the Minister's Vote. It is the Minister who ought to be and is responsible for what takes place and for the rules made at these centres. If we put the whole thing into a strait-waistcoat of regulations we shall make the management of these centres impossible.

Mr. LAWSON: Before the Minister finishes may I put it to him that he has spoken on the assumption that we are dealing with Ministry of Labour training centres, whereas this is a Clause concerning training centres under the Unemployment Assistance Board? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to that point.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that we have passed beyond that stage. The Clause, with the addition of the Amendment, would read:
In the exercise of the functions of the Unemployment Assistance Board under this part of this Act the board in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister.
It is those words which we are now discussing; and not whether these centres should be set up by the board, because we have passed from that. We are merely discussing whether they should be carried on with the approval of the Minister or under regulations which have to come before Parliament.

Mr. LAWSON: The point I was making was that the Minister seemed to base his defence on the ground that these were training centres under his control, but they are not under his control.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand that to be the Minister's defence. If that had been the case it would have been outside the scope of the Amendment. What I understood him to argue was that he was in favour of leaving this matter to require only the approval of the Minister, not that he should be required to make regulations which would have to be laid before this House.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. PALING: In my view the answer of the Minister has emphasised the importance of our contention. He argues that if the regulations have to come before this House they will be rigid, and it will not be possible to alter them without coming to the House on a subsequent
occasion. That may be so, but what is the alternative? He suggests that questions can be brought up on the Minister's Vote. Am I not right in supposing that that would give us an opportunity of discussing them only about once a year? If anything was wrong with the regulations we should have an opportunity of discussing them only once a year. In my view that is a very strong reason for inserting this Amendment. If the regulations prove to be wrong, even after the House has adopted them, we need not wait anything like a year to alter them; it could be done in a few weeks, or months at the most. I think the Minister has evaded one of the main points—the fear that we are going to lose Parliamentary control over the unemployed. That is why this Amendment has been put down. Even the regulations do not give us the kind of control we would like, because it would be very limited, but they would provide some kind of control, and if we do not get regulations laid down in accordance with the terms of this Amendment then our control will have gone altogether. Another point I wish to put is that these training centres may prove to be one of the most controversial parts of the Bill. A lot of things are being said about them already. They are referred to as "slave camps," and although that may be exaggerated language—

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Who says that?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member made a reference to something. I do not want that taken up by other hon. Members so as to lead the hon. Member on to something irrelevant.

Mr. PALING: That is the kind of thing that is being said. It may be exaggerated—I do not know—but the fear is there. As has been said by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) men who are getting on in years, men of 35 to 40 years of age, want to know what these training camps will mean for them. They are afraid they will be disciplined and dragooned, and required to do things for which they have no liking. It will prove to be a very controversial part of the Bill, and if that is so there is all the more reason why we should have some kind of control over what will be done. The Minister's answer is no answer, it
does not meet the situation. If it proves anything, it proves the necessity for the Amendment.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish the Minister would really face up to this proposition. You have given a Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I have no doubt you will not grant me the licence that others have had on this question of training, but there is this point which I think does come within the Amendment. This Measure will apply to everybody who comes on to transitional benefit, irrespective of age, family commitments or anything else. It gives the Ministry the power to make a man undergo training, and there is an extremely wide alteration in the law. Hitherto those who were undergoing training had the safeguard of what we call rota committees plus the courts of referees. This Bill makes training apply to everybody and without the safeguards formerly existing. In such circumstances surely Parliament should have a right of control. The Minister may decide in future that this requirement shall not apply to people of a certain age. Surely Parliament has a right to discuss at what age men shall come under these regulations. The Minister has suggested difficulties by saying that every week or every month some alterations may have to be made, and because a former Under Secretary in a Labour Government has praised these training camps the Minister asks us to let him do whatever he likes. That does not meet our point, however, which is that this House ought to approve of the conditions under which men are required to undergo training. The House ought to approve of the age, and have the right to say that no man with a young family should be compelled to go.

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the question of compelling people to go to training centres certainly does not arise on this Amendment, and I cannot find that it arises anywhere on this Clause. That is why I nearly interrupted him before. I still fail to see the point of his remarks.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The point is this: If the centres were governed by regulations, the Minister would come here with
the regulations and would say, "This training shall apply only to classes defined in the regulations." Those regulations would have to define the classes of the unemployed and the ages to which they applied. Unless you have regulations, you give the Minister absolute and unlimited power. Only regulations can limit his power, and unless the Minister incorporates this Amendment, which will throw upon him the responsibility of bringing regulations here, he will have power over the lives of people, a power which he ought not to possess.
The regulations ought to be subject to the approval of Parliament, for this further reason, that everybody knows that you cannot apply the training to everybody. It has to be circumscribed, and the choice before the Committee is whether the Minister shall circumscribe it with his officials without the consent of Parliament, or whether it shall be circumscribed by regulations which shall be subject to the approval of Parliament. The Minister will agree that he has no intention of sending people of about 60 years of age to the training camps, because—I expect he would also agree—that would be a waste of money and time. Therefore he will circumscribe the training. I expect that the training scheme will not apply to people who have tremendous family ties which make it impossible for them to go. The point which the Committee is now discussing is what control we shall have in regard to the people who are to go to the training camp. We say that no regulations should be passed that send anybody there until the House of Commons definitely approve them.
I am not going to argue the wide field of training camps here or training camps in other places. There have been different types of training camps set up in the country. For example, that at Carstairs did not deal with engineers or carpenters because Carstairs was purely for foreign service. It was at Springburn that the men and women were trained to be hairdressers. At Carstairs the training was in agricultural and road work. The Minister ought seriously to consider bringing before the House regulations limiting his power; otherwise, his power will be of such a wide character. The House of Commons ought to have some say in the matter.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I feel that the Minister probably met, to a certain extent, the point which is raised by the wording of the Amendment. He may be, and no doubt he is, right that if those words were inserted it would be necessary to bring before the House from time to time trivial matters of routine of the kind to which he referred. I do not feel that he has met the point of substance that was raised by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and which has been reinforced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanon). This Amendment, as I see it, seeks to bring out the difficulty that the Clause as it stands merely provides for the setting up of courses and camps—

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Carried out by the Board.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Exactly. It does not prescribe in any way who is to be sent to those camps, except that they must be over 18 years of age. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way prescribes the method by which the selection of the individuals who are to be sent to the camps is to be carried out. The only thing that one finds is the penal provision which says what there is power to do if people do not go to camp. There is a very great point of substance which the Committee might be reluctant to hand over to the board, even though we take an opposite view from hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition as to the precise extent to which the board will be within the control of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for putting the point. He has made it quite clear that the point to which he was addressing himself and that to which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) addressed himself are points which arise on Clause 39, and not on this Clause at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in one respect. No part of this Clause deals with the question of compelling anybody to go to training camps.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I have been trying to keep within the limits of order. It is not entirely easy, because the two Clauses are to some extent interconnected. The point of substance which I have tried to bring out, and which I
think was in the mind of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), is that as the Clause stands, and merely with the words "with the approval of the Minister," there is no method of bringing before the House of Commons, not the details of the different kinds of training, to which point the Minister gave an effective reply, but the general basis upon which people should be brought within the scheme of training. There is the question of age, for example. It is unthinkable that power should be reposed in a board to bring within the scheme everybody who is over the age of 18. Unless some words, either similar to the ones which have been moved or better for the purpose, are inserted, the Committee, in passing this Clause as it now stands, abandon all power of reviewing the type of people who are to be brought within the ambit of the training camps. It is possible that these exact words do not carry out the intentions of those who moved them, and I beg the Minister to consider between now and the Report stage whether suitable words could not be inserted so as to ensure that the principles upon which people are to be admitted to the camps are brought before the House by regulation or otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will try to follow my Ruling because I think I am right. He will tell me if he thinks that I am wrong. I think that he will see that even if this Amendment were carried, it would not lead in the slightest degree, any more than the Clause does at present, to compelling people to go to the centres. That confirms what I said just now that the proper place for raising this question is upon Clause 39.

Mr. O'CONNOR: I am very much obliged. I entirely agree with your Ruling that whatever is done by these words they would not meet the point that hon. Members opposite are trying to make. It is for that reason that I attempted to throw out a caveat that the point which has been raised, although not met, by these words, is a point of substance.

The CHAIRMAN: I quite agree. No doubt it is a point of substance, but I think we shall definitely find that it is a point of substance which is out of Order on this Clause.

Mr. JANNER: On the point of Order. Would it not be correct to say that if this Clause is accepted as it stands it would ultimately mean that there would be compulsion in the event of the board saying that they wanted regulations?

The CHAIRMAN: No. My opinion is quite definitely that it would not.

Mr. JANNER: What would be the purpose of passing this Clause if at a later stage, an Amendment was passed to one of the other Clauses which would invalidate the effect of it?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which perhaps the hon. Member will ask when we come to the Clause. This Clause is a fairly simple one to provide for the establishment of these particular courses and centres. It does not provide who is to go there.

Mr. JANNER: I am sorry, but I cannot follow how the point is still out of Order. Once the Clause is passed we shall have created a machine for the introduction of regulations.

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. JANNER: The possibility of the introduction of regulations. If at a later stage the Committee come to the conclusion that there should be no regulations, the insertion of this Clause in the Bill would be unnecessary. That is why I say with respect that we ought to be allowed to discuss the matter as a question of policy.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry that I entirely fail to follow the hon. Member. At the present moment the word "regulations" is not mentioned in this Clause; it is mentioned in the Amendment. If the hon. Member will just follow me for a moment, I will try and make clear what I have already said. The only effect of this Clause is to set up certain centres or establishments. The particular Amendment which we are now discussing is as to whether they shall be set up by the board with the approval of the Minister, or under regulations made by the Minister. To put in the words "in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister", would no more give power to those regulations to compel people to go there than it would give power to those regulations to do anything else which is entirely outside this particular Clause.

Mr. CAPORN: May I call your attention to paragraph (a) of the Clause, in which the courses are to be set up for certain persons. The paragraph obviously contemplates that somebody is to go there.

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly. The hon. Member is not going to alter my opinion. I do not anticipate that the Clause was intended to set up establishments that were not to be used. It does not alter my opinion that there is nothing in the Clause to compel anybody to go there.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The issue before the Committee is as to which is the more effective way of the House of Commons having control over the training centres. The Amendment says that the effective way is to do it by regulations, and the Minister says that that would interfere with the efficient management of the training centres. In order that we might have some clarity on the matter, will the Minister please tell us what is the significance of the words "with the approval of the Minister"? I should like to know whether that means that the Minister himself will be responsible for the training, because I gather that the Unemployment Assistance Board must in each case carry out the functions imposed upon them under this Clause with the approval of the Minister himself. As the Minister is the servant of the House, and all these things can be done only with his approval, does that mean with the approval of the House? In other words, shall we be permitted day by day, if we so wish, to put questions on the Order Paper relating to the setting up of these training centres, the persons who are sent to them, their ages, and matters of that sort, as we are now entitled to ask the Minister questions with respect to the other training centres? That is the issue before us.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The Chairman has ruled, and, with great respect, I would say absolutely accurately, that that point would not be helped by the Amendment. The Amendment would only help as regards the provision and the type of training.

Mr. BEVAN: I am on a different issue entirely. I agree, if I may say so respectfully, that the Ruling of the Chair is absolutely correct as regards Clause 39,
but the issue before the House is as to which is the most effective way of establishing popular control over these training centres and over the setting up of the training centres. Do the words "with the approval of the Minister" mean that, if he accepts responsibility, we can hold him responsible?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Perhaps I might answer that question at once. In this matter I hold the purse-strings, and, therefore, nothing can be done without my approval, because, if it were, I should not pay for it. Therefore, the House has the full power and authority and right to question me, as I am responsible for the money. That, also, is the answer to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). If I found that persons were asked to go to these centres who were of unsuitable age or unsuitable character, I should at once say that I did not approve, and should not provide the money to pay for it. Therefore, I am responsible.

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the funds for this purpose will be disbursed from the general funds of the Unemployment Assistance Board. That merely means that we shall be able to discuss the matter on the Vote of Supply. That is not what we want. What we want is to know from the Minister, and we should be very much indebted to him if he would give us a straightforward reply, whether the words "with the approval of the Minister" mean that the House can, through the Minister, by the various devices open to Members—letters to him, questions on the Order Paper, interpolations of various kinds on the Adjournment, and methods of that kind—that the House can exercise over these training centres, through these words, control from day to day. If the words "with the approval of the Minister" mean that, I would prefer that method, but that is what I want to know, and what I think the Committee want to know. Is that the significance of the words "with the approval of the Minister"?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I can assure the hon. Member that he will be very much better off as regards obtaining what he wants by the words in the Clause than by the words proposed in the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: I think hon. Members will agree that this is a most important
matter. We are parting with powers to an organisation which may give them power to conscript people and take them from their homes without the slightest let or hindrance, and we are entitled to ask the Minister in what way we shall be able to exercise Parliamentary control over such great powers. If the words "with the approval of the Minister" mean that the Minister is going to be responsible, then we can hold him responsible for what he does. If, on the other hand, that approval merely means that he gives his formal assent to the setting up of training centres, and that after they have been set up he washes his hands of further responsibility for what happens in them, the House will be completely helpless in the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether I shall help the hon. Member or otherwise, but it seems to me that we are getting into a discussion of something which is quite an improper subject for discussion on the Floor of the House, as well as a most unsuitable subject for discussion on the Clause. We are apparently discussing some question of Parliamentary procedure, and, if the Minister were to give a particular and detailed answer to such questions as the hon. Member is asking, he would be giving an answer on matters which are in the hands of the House and the Chair, and not in his hands. I would point out—and here I think I can assist the hon. Member—that it is perfectly well known, in theory if not in practice, to every Member of the House, what right he as a Member of the House has in regard to holding a Minister responsible for his actions. The point that I want, if I can, to impress upon the hon. Member, is that the responsibility of a Minister to the House of Commons is unlimited, under the Constitution of this country and the Rules of Procedure of the House. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Member is getting on to rather dangerous ground if he is trying to force the Minister to say exactly what the effect will be in the event of either the hon. Member himself, or other Members of the House, disapproving of the Minister's conduct.

Mr. BEVAN: I am exceedingly obliged to you, Sir Dennis, but I would like to point out that the power which the House has over the Minister is circumscribed
and modified and qualified by the Statute giving the Minister certain powers. It is the Statute which regulates it.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not so at all. This is not a question of giving the Minister certain independent powers; it is a question of the Minister having certain duties or discretions; and the power of the House to call him to account on the way in which he carries out his duties or exercises his discretions is not circumscribed and not limited to the mere occasion of the vote for hips salary. It can be done at any time, in case of need even for instance, by a vote of censure on the Minister.

Mr. BEVAN: That is precisely the point that I am raising. If the language of the Clause as set out now in the Bill, and the legal interpretation of the words "with the approval of the Minister," is that the Unemployment Assistance Board is to be responsible for the training, and not the Minister, then, if we go to the Table, the Clerk will say to us, "You cannot put a question about training, because that is carried on by a statutory board which is set up by an Act and outside the control of Parliament, its expenses being charged on the Consolidated Fund." If, on the other hand, the words "with the approval of the Minister" mean that the Minister is to be responsible for the training centres, then we can question the Minister. That is the issue before the Committee, and I would respectfully represent to you, Sir, that the relationship between a Department and a Member of Parliament is limited and circumscribed by the Statute about which the Member wishes to question the Minister.
We have parted with the first Clause of this second part of the Act, and, therefore, we cannot now put any questions to the Minister with respect to the Unemployment Assistance Board; we can only discuss it on the Vote of Supply, on the report of the board, or by moving a vote of censure. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment has said, "Here is a very important matter of training centres, and we think that, in order that Parliament may be able to exercise control, these training centres should be set up only under regulations approved by the House." On the other hand, my hon. Friends would be perfectly prepared to say—at least, I think so—that, if the
Minister admits that he is going to be responsible directly from day to day for these training centres, we should prefer that form of control, because it gives us the right to criticise the Minister from day to day. Indeed, in those circumstances a Member could move the Adjournment of the House on the ground that the Minister had given his approval to something of which he ought not to have approved, or he could raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Will the Minister be good enough to help us? We are at the moment without the assistance of legal authority on these benches. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would help us by saying what in his judgment is the meaning of the words "with the approval of the Minister," and whether they establish direct responsibility on the part of the Minister for the training to be carried on under the Unemployment Assistance Board. I do not wish to pursue the matter any further, but I believe that Members in all parts of the Committee would be helped if we could learn the significance of these words in the Bill.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Before the Solicitor-General replies, may I point out that the approval of the Minister goes both to the provision of the training courses and also to the maintenance of the courses, and, therefore, the Minister is, in my submission, quite clearly responsible for the maintenance of these courses, and could be challenged on the Floor of the House?

HON. MEMBERS: Will he say so?

5.13 p.m.

Mr. KNIGHT: I should like to point out to the Committee the extreme gravity of this matter. We are discussing regulations for placing restrictions on the conduct of very large numbers of persons who will be brought within this Measure. For the first time in our history we are bringing very large numbers of persons—for good cause shown, as I think—within the scope of the Measure, and it is an extremely serious question whether the restrictions to be placed upon the liberties of those persons are to be under regulations or conditions approved by the House of Commons. That, as I understand it, is the point.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will tell me where
in the Clause any question of restrictions on anybody is dealt with.

Mr. KNIGHT: The answer is this: The Clause contemplates the exercise of functions by the Unemployment Assistance Board under the approval of the Minister, and we are now discussing whether that approval will ensure Parliamentary control.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would go on to read what those functions are.

Mr. KNIGHT: Later on in the Clause it is set out what the functions are.

The CHAIRMAN: Can the hon. and learned Member show me where compulsion is one of those functions?

Mr. KNIGHT: With great respect, I thought it was common ground here that this Clause contemplates that certain persons—I am not going into categories of persons; it would be out of order—are, under this part of the Bill, brought under some government control. That is common ground.

The CHAIRMAN: It may be common ground, but that comes under Clause 39, and not under this Clause. That is what I am trying to point out to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am aware of that. I am pointing out that, when we are asked to vest the Minister with power to approve the exercise of these functions by the board, it is germane to consider how grave the exercise of that power will be. These regulations or functions are going to be exercised in respect of very large numbers of people for the first time. They may say, "This treatment of us is not just." It is for us to see that the regulations of these functions, as contemplated by the Clause, by the Minister is such that those reasonable complaints will be satisfied. It is the function of this House, surely, to be certain that, when the Minister approves the functions of this board, his exercise of that power will be under conditions which this House can review. I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation.
I think the House will have a reasonable opportunity of considering the exercise of the functions by the board. While it is true that the expenses are not on the Consolidated Fund, the constitutional
principle to which you, Sir, have just referred has a very valuable extension, namely, that the House has the right to question the Minister as to any conduct and I am satisfied that under the present Rules of the House the Committee can rely upon any function exercised by this or any other Minister in respect of the Bill being reviewed. Suppose a complaint is made that these orders impose undue hardship on the subject, surely it will be open for the conduct of the Minister to be called in question. Is it suggested that there is any conduct of the Minister which cannot be reviewed by the House? There are ample means for such review. But let the Committee be under no delusion. This matter is one of the greatest encroachments on the liberty of the subject which Parliament has considered for generations. [Laughter.] If anyone laughs at that, he does not appreciate the meaning of the scheme. I believe the fears of these matters not being adequately reviewed are not well founded.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I wonder if we might have the Solicitor-General's views. The Minister has endeavoured to explain his functions, but all that he has done is somewhat to mystify us. You, Sir, have tried to help us by explaining what the Minister's powers are, but that has made the Minister's explanation all the more difficult to understand. I think the Solicitor-General might explain to us exactly what powers this body is going to have, what power the Minister has, and what power we are going to have to put questions to the Minister on this important function. The right hon. Gentleman says he controls the purse strings. I gather from the Clause that it is the board which is to maintain the training courses. I think the Solicitor-General might help us, and tell us whether we have power to put questions and whether the Minister is really handing over extraordinary powers, with penal clauses at their disposal, to a body which is going to be beyond our control, or whether we are really going to have from time to time the powers to control this matter by questions and in other ways.

5.32 p.m.

Major MILNER: I hope the Solicitor-General will give us his views. As I understand my hon. Friends, they desire
—though I doubt whether the Amendment expresses it in the way they wish—to be in a position to question the Minister in regard to the operations of the board. I submit that they will only be able to question him as to why, and when and to whom, and on what grounds he gives his approval. It would not be permissible under this Clause, whatever it may be elsewhere, to question him as to the operations of the board, which is what my hon. Friends desire to do, and, if that is so, some form of words ought to be found enabling Members to question the Minister as to the operations of the board and not merely limiting questions and interpretations to the matter of giving or withholding his approval as the case may be, which is the case at present.

5.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I did not hear the earlier part of the discussion, and I only intervene to give such help as I can, because the hon. Member asked me to do so. As I understand the position, the Minister has to approve both the provision and the maintenance of the courses. I should have said the House would have considerably more power under the words in the Bill than under the Amendment once the regulations were passed. Once the regulations were passed, the thing to some extent would pass away from the general area of Ministerial approval to regulations which the House has dealt with. The day-to-day conduct of these courses will he by the board, but, if things happen at these training courses which found the argument that here is something that ought not to have been approved by the Minister, hon. Members could obviously on an appropriate occasion raise matters of that kind under that head.

Mr. T. SMITH: What head?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Any one of the Supply Days or a Vote of Censure, or on general occasions. I should have said day-to-day questions in regard to anything that has happened. If the intention is that matters of which they disapprove should be brought to the notice of Parliament, there will be ample opportunity under the words of the Bill.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: After hearing the Solicitor-General's opinion, I am more
convinced than ever that our Amendment is correct. Before the Minister sets up these training centres and makes the rules and regulations which are going to govern them, we desire that he will lay them before us, so that they may meet with our approval or disapproval. The explanation that we have had from the Solicitor-General does not give us that right. I shall press the Amendment to a Division.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I, to, have come definitely to the conclusion that the Amendment should be pressed to a Division. It is clear not only that the matter is of extreme importance but that the actual provision of the training centres depends entirely upon the Clause. The Clause talks about the provision and maintenance of training courses and the amount to be contributed towards the cost of them. Obviously, all the questions relating to their provision and management will have to be taken into consideration prior to the decision being arrived at. Consequently, this is obviously the most important part of the Bill relating to this matter. In these circumstances, we say that it is not proper that the matter should, in the first instance, be decided by the Minister and that after it is discovered that things are not working properly someone should endeavour to move a Vote of Censure or something of that nature. Apart from any other consideration, we on this side know what the results of moving a Vote of Censure are likely to be, and we are not satisfied that we shall be in a position to remedy a matter that has gone wrong.
In those circumstances, I would appeal to the right hon. Member to accept the Amendment. There is nothing unreasonable in it. It is obvious that the House ought to be consulted on a matter of this description, and ought to know why it is necessary to have such and such a training centre, and why we should contribute towards its maintenance. The House should be given an opportunity of expressing itself before the possibility of a mistake arises and not after a mistake has been made. Some of us on these benches—and I have no doubt that there are hon. Members in other parts of the House—do not always agree with every action which is taken by every Minister. I have no doubt that the present Minister is a competent and very reasonable man,
but at some later stage he may be replaced by a Minister not as competent or reasonable, or, in due course, owing to attacks made upon him in other parts of the House, he may change his reasonableness and feel embittered about the matter. He might be a Liberal Minister, as an hon. Member says, and the House might consider that too many concessions were being made. It is clear that once this matter has passed, the House will not have adequate opportunities for upsetting what may have been done.
Therefore, the Minister ought to give a concession of this kind, as it does not mean anything very terrible as far as he is concerned. It would mean that instead of having to take the responsibility himself, the House would assist him, and if things went wrong he would be able to turn to the House and say that it was as much the fault of the House as it was his fault. We ought to be given a guarantee on this matter, and should not give away something which is of extreme importance by passing over an issue which, on the surface, may not appear to be very clear. It will mean the controlling of the lives of many people, and it is not fair that it should be done in any other manner than with the assistance of the House, or be done without reasonable consideration.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I am surprised that the Minister has not met us to-night by making a concession. I can only explain it by the fact that whenever we come to any of the machinery in the Bill we know that there will be no concession. The machinery which he is erecting is the vital part of the Bill, and therefore the Minister sticks to it tenaciously, and will not give any concession which seeks to modify the machinery. I am of the opinion, however, that the Minister, if he could really get away from the board and could think of the most effective provisions which might be made for the training centres, would meet us. The board, as constituted by him, is not a fit and proper board to deal with this subject. It will have no experience. Its personnel will not consist of the kind of people who ought to deal with this matter. I should have thought that in the interests of the scheme which the Minister has in view, he would have given the maximum amount of opportunity for this House to discuss the regu-
lations relating to the provision of the training centres. All that the Minister has given us is the opportunity to talk about mistakes generally in the middle of a discursive discussion ranging over the whole activities of his Department. Under that provision, even after the explanation which we have had, we shall not be able to concentrate the attention of this House on the provision of these centres to the extent that we ought to be able to do. I would impress upon the Minister that it is not sufficient that we should merely have power to criticise in a ma[...] of this kind and be able to look back. If the Minister is really concerned about a constructive effort, and if there is anything in the Bill of the smallest constructive nature, it is this part of it—there is nothing else in it, and even this is extremely small—and if he wants a contribution from all those Members of Parliament who are interested in the future well-being of these youths, he ought to give Members of the House the maximum number of opportunities to discuss matters relating to this issue.
I am of opinion, from the attitude which the Minister has adopted to-night, that he is far more concerned about the integrity and powers of the board than he is about anything else in the Bill. He is far more concerned with the fact that this secret board and its powers must not be tampered with, and that it should be immune from all criticism. The Minister to-night is looking upon the board from the angle that it must not even receive suggestions from the House of Commons by any discussion upon the regulations applying to the training centres. I am surprised that the Minister, in this part of his Bill anyhow, does not welcome the maximum amount of interest from Members of the House in those centres. I do not think that it will be possible for training centres to make the best possible contribution when shut away under the jurisdiction of the board. It will be very difficult for us to get at them. If the Minister wants his training centres to do the best possible work, we must be given a chance in this House to say what they shall do, or even to say who shall go to the training centres, and to lay down the general regulations upon which they shall be run.
I protest against the attitude of the Government to-night as expressed by the
Minister. The same attitude is running through the whole of these Debates. They are setting up dictatorial machinery, for that is what it means. They are determined that our dictators shall not only not be criticised, but that we shall not be able to tender them advice even about the training centres. It will lead to ineffectiveness and to the centres not contributing what they ought to contribute. Indeed, I am desperately afraid that without Parliament having an opportunity to discuss them, intense grievances will arise in the training centres, and all the defects of bureaucracy will be there. An atmosphere of discontent will be aroused, and the centres will be unable to render their best services. The Government can go on with this process of trying to arrive at a Tory dictatorship in this country. The board may be regarded as a secret instrument, but the Minister, I am certain, will find in a few years' time the advice, criticism and help of democracy in and through this Parliament the best thing he could possibly have even for the successful running of these training centres.

5.40 p.m

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has very nearly done his job too well. If I believed what he has said, namely, that leaving the Bill as it is would wreck all prospect of these training centres becoming a success, I would support the retention of the existing Bill. If there is one thing upon which those who sit with me on these benches are united, it is that we are satisfied that the whole conception behind this training centre plan is a wicked and foolish one. It is an attempt to impose conscription upon that section of the community who are too poor to resist it, and a conscription which would not be tolerated by any other section of society.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the hon. Member was present earlier when it was ruled that the question of conscription does not arise upon this Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I was not here, Sir Dennis, when you gave your Ruling, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) explained to me the nature of your Ruling and the frequency
of it. Surely, even in Committee a Member is allowed a certain exordium and a certain peroration. I was merely at the exordium. The reason why I used the word "conscription" was particularly with reference to the explanation given by the learned Solicitor-General who described to us in detail, I think with your full approval, the occasions when Members of this House would have an opportunity of raising the matters involved on the Floor of this House. In detailing the occasions he said that, while it might be raised on a Vote of Censure on one of the Supply Days on the Minister's salary, it would not be in order to raise it by day to day questioning in this House. That seems to say that this Clause gives to the men who are in these camps a more discredited position than is presently given. I can, on any day, raise questions in this House affecting a soldier, sailor, or a member of the Air Force or a member of the police force who has been guilty of the most flagrant breach of discipline. I can question the appropriate Minister any day I like. If a convict at Dartmoor communicates with me, as one did yesterday, on a matter affecting his health in prison, I can raise it here, or I can write to the Home Secretary, or see him personally, with the knowledge that the thing which I ask on behalf of my aggrieved constituent is something which is reasonable, and the Minister has power to act on behalf of that constituent. If he is a criminal or if he is a member of one of the Forces who has voluntarily taken upon himself long-term periods of discipline and subordination to authority, I can raise his case, but in the case of an unemployed man who is compelled by this law to go into these places willy-nilly, with the alternative of starvation offered to him, then the learned Solicitor-General says that there will be no opportunity for me, as a representative in this House, to raise his legitimate grievance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Any question by an hon. Member on a proper subject matter of criticism can be brought before the House on the appropriate occasion, as showing that the course which was being maintained, with the approval of the Minister, was not a course which the Minister ought to have approved. Therefore, the hon. Member is wrong in saying that matters of complaint such as those to which he has referred
could not be brought before the House by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I to understand the Solicitor-General to say now that the day-to-day grievances of men in these training centres, either as individuals or as groups, are appropriate matters for question in the ordinary way in this House? Can I put down a question on the Order Paper about John Smith, of Bridgeton, being penalised in a certain training centre by having his leave withdrawn, or being deprived of food, or being subjected to some other disciplinary measure which may have been taken against him, or can I raise it on the Adjournment of the House from day to day? As I understood the Solicitor-General, he said that I cannot raise these particular issues, and I say that, if that be so, the person who goes to one of these training centres is on a lower status of citizenship than a man in one of the armed Forces of the Crown, or a man in one of our convict prisons. His status is less than that of an outlaw. If a man is an outlaw I can raise a question about him in this House.

5.49 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I apologise for speaking again. This is a matter of importance. It is not for me to rule or decide in advance what questions are or are not proper to be put on the Order Paper. I was only endeavouring to assist the Committee by stating how the words in the Bill presented themselves to me in regard to the question of the responsibility of the Minister. What I said was, that these particular training courses are run by the board, and that you cannot hold the Minister responsible for what goes on from day to day there in the same way that you can hold him responsible for something which happens, say, in his own office; but as the cost of the provision and the maintenance of these centres has to be approved by the Minister, he could be attacked on anything that takes place at those courses on the ground that he had approved something, namely, the maintenance of the courses, that ought not to have been approved. I understand that questions if they were put in that form probably would be in order. I was not saying what could or could not be put on the Order Paper, but I was trying to analyse for
the Committee how the responsibility of the Minister is dealt with in the Bill, and I said that questions relating to the responsibility of the Minister would be in order.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I understand the position as the Solicitor-General puts it now, but it is not essentially different from the interpretation that I have been putting. The Minister having set up the centres and having made regulations, the centres are then put under a board over whom we have only that measure of control that we have over judges of the highest courts of the land; which is the most detached and independent position that anyone could occupy in the State, designedly and deliberately, and probably wisely so, in the case of judges. Now the responsibility for the regulation and control and direction of the lives of several millions of citizens, who have committed no offence, is to be put under the control of a board over whom we have no control whatever of an effective kind. Once the regulations are made, or once this Clause is passed, our effective power has gone to defend any one of these individuals. If that be so, then I think, knowing the unemployed men of this country very well, what the hon. Member for Aberavon fears I may reasonably hope.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The position of the Committee in regard to this Amendment of the Clause which it seeks to correct is extremely unsatisfactory, because questions have been asked to-day quite genuinely, to which we cannot obtain an answer. I am sure the Solicitor-General has done his very best to put the position before us, but obviously he cannot anticipate with any confidence what will be the decision on some future occasion as to questions being put on the Order Paper; neither, as I gather, would it be in order for us to address questions to the Chair and to ask for some hypothetical decision as to dealing with some hypothetical question in the future. The result is that the question whether we can keep our hands on the day to day administration of these training centres is something which is left entirely in the dark. We shall not know until long after the Bill has been passed and comes into opera-
tion, and until some hon. Member tries to put a question on the Order Paper and it is allowed or disallowed. Then it will be too late to alter it.
The result is that, through no fault of the Solicitor-General, we are approaching this question without knowing whether the Minister's words really give us the control that we desire, or ought to desire. That is a most unsatisfactory position. If the words which the Government have put into the Bill lead to that unsatisfactory position, then the words ought to be altered. Either the Government ought to accept the words suggested in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), or if they cannot accept that Amendment they ought to say, as they have said on other occasions, that they will try between now and the Report stage to discover words—it is going to be a pretty big Report stage if they are to do all these things—by means of which we can get a definite answer and be assured as to the control we are to have over the lives and fortunes of these people. I am not allowed by the Ruling that has been given to anticipate Clause 39, but it is obvious that these training centres are not to be without discipline, and that the people who join them are to be subject to discipline. Therefore, the nature of that discipline is all-important from the point of view of the people who go there, whether they go there voluntarily or not. Either the Amendment should be accepted or we should get some kind of assurance from the Minister. If we do not get that assurance of better words being inserted, I cannot see how any Member of the Committee can be safe in doing anything but supporting the Amendment.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I can see the difficulty of setting up and putting into operation training centres in the depressed areas, and because of that I think it is advisable that on the Report stage the Government should bring forward words that would conform with the wishes expressed by hon. Members. It may be that the words, "in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister" may not exactly meet the occasion. I must be quite candid in my statement on this matter when I say that the words "with the approval of the Minister"
appear to me to be complete eye-wash. They do not convey anything to me as to the authority that is going to be exercised, unless it means a dictatorship by a sacrosanct body, which will be dealing with this administration. I am not entitled to go into matters of administration, but I do say that we ought to have full authority. It is because a restriction is implied in this Clause and we shall not be able to exercise our authority in regard to the functioning of this body that I urge the necessity of some alteration in the wording.
The Solicitor-General gave an interpretation of the words, and that interpretation conforms with the opinions that have been expressed by several hon. Members. We feel that the limitation of the authority of Parliament implied in this Clause is one which we are not anxious to bring into operation. I want full power to discuss the difficulties that may arise from day to day. We are not prepared to accept anything in the nature of dictatorship. We feel that there is a difficulty in the Clause, and because of that and the phraseology of the Clause which, in its essentials, sets up a dictatorship, with no control from the House of Commons, we feel that words should be brought forward more in conformity with the power that ought to be vested in this House. I think the Minister ought to take this Clause back. If he wishes to work the Act in the spirit that he has mentioned, he ought to be prepared to take the Clause back. I am afraid that he is not prepared to take it back, that he wishes powers to be vested in this body and that it should be able to exercise its functions apart from the House of Commons. He ought to show his liberality by agreeing to the Amendment. The phraseology of the Amendment proposed may be wrong, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to meet the spirit of the Committee and agree to a change of phraseology which would give the control which is desired by the House. Therefore, I ask the Minister to say that on the Report stage he is prepared to bring forward words that will meet the spirit of the mover of the Amendment.

5.59 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: My view is that the words in the Bill do include and give every right and power which hon.
Members desire. If they do not, I will look into the matter, and if I can find words which better carry out what I have in mind, then I will put them in, but it is only right to tell the Committee that I am advised that the words in the Bill carry out everything which hon. Members want. I can say nothing more.

6 p.m.

Mr. BATEY: If the position is as stated by the Minister of Labour, then there is no reason why he should not accept the Amendment, because it makes the matter perfectly clear. I am not going to discuss the question of the training centres, as it would be out of order, but if they are to be set up without the House of Commons having a chance of considering them, we cannot spend too much time in discussing the regulations which are to be issued. The Amendment simply asks that the regulations shall be laid before the House of Commons before they are agreed to. The Minister thinks that the words in the Bill are sufficient, and that he alone should have the right of approving the regulations. One could understand that point of view if the Minister of Labour never made any mistake, but our experience is that the present Minister of Labour has made more mistakes than any of his predecessors. [Interruption.] Let us see whether that is true. The present Minister of Labour was responsible for sending the unemployed before the public assistance committee, but to-day no one condemns that mere strongly than the Minister of Labour himself. It proves conclusively that he made a colossal blunder. He made another mistake. He was responsible for the means test, for making the family keep the unemployed man. That was a mistake. The Prime Minister even condemns that to-day. Speaking in Seaham a week or two ago the Prime Minister said:
Any means test which tended towards the destruction of family life was bad in principle.
In addition, there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who condemn the destruction of family life by the application of the means test. It was a mistake on the part of the present Minister of Labour, and hon. Members opposite backed him up in applying the means test to the destruction of family life. If he has made mistakes in these
two important questions, may we not conclude that he may be making a colossal mistake in regard to these training centres? We should be unwise in leaving this matter in the hands of the Minister of Labour. And in framing the new regulations would he not be guided by the present regulations which apply to training centres? I want to read one or two of the present regulations to which the Minister of Labour has agreed. One regulation says:
In regard to the training centres, the hours of work are normally 44 hours per week. Most of the time is spent on forest clearing, trenching, draining, road making, and other such work. No wages are paid. So far as circumstances permit jobs will be found for as many as possible of those who work hard and show keenness.
That is one regulation, and I am certain that this House would never have agreed to such a regulation. The same regulation goes on to say:
It is unlikely that these jobs will be found in the home town.
In my opinion it is a most serious thing to send men away from their home towns, leaving their wives and families, in order to find work somewhere else. The regulation also provides:
If a man abandons the course without good cause, or is dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct, his claim for benefit or transitional payment may be affected.
That is another regulation to which it would be extremely difficult to get this House to agree. Under the Bill this regulation would mean that if a man was dismissed for unsatisfactory conduct, he could get no relief under Part II. Where is that man to go? He must be helped in some way. I submit that if this is to be one of the new regulations, then there is only one place for that man, and that is the workhouse. Another regulation says:
Men applying for a course must be prepared to proceed either to a residential or non-residential centre. On and from 1st March, 1934, the fixed charge for board and lodging at residential centres will be increased by 1s. per week so that a man sent to that type of centre will be left with 3s. per week for personal expenses.
If the new regulations for these training centres are made on the lines of the present regulations, then the Lord help the poor fellows who have to go there.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: Nonsense. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member further than to say that
I have spent a good many weeks in the last three months talking to trainees in their own homes and in their lodgings, and I have gone round the training centres themselves. I think that they are probably the most contented body of young men in England to-day. They are enthusiastic at the chance of getting a fresh start in life away from home. Only yesterday a man said to me, "I have never been so well satisfied for years as I am now. I have got away from home, and a chance now to start life afresh. People are good, and help me." To talk as the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) is now talking shows that he is wholly out of touch with the young trainees themselves.

Mr. BATEY: Any hon. Member would be able to say that if he did not come from a distressed area, but if is from distressed areas that these young men are taken.

Mr. MARTIN: Has the hon. Member visited any of the training centres which draw their men from the distressed areas? I have visited several which draw largely from the Tyneside and my own division, and I can support what the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) says.

Mr. BATEY: I am not denying the fact that some of them are quite comfortable, but at the same time that is not all the story, because one has met many men in the distressed areas who have returned dissatisfied. Here is another regulation which is in force at present:
The fixed charge for board and lodgings at residential centres will be increased by 1s. per week so that a man sent to that type of centre will be left with 3s. per week for personal expenses.
I put it to hon. Members, would they be satisfied with 3s. a week for personal expenses?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly!"]—All I have to say is that hon. Members are easily satisfied. The hon. and gallant Member says that he has met a good many of these men who are quite contented. I have heard the same argument before. During the War it was said that our soldiers were quite contented. It was the common story—

Mr. MAXTON: Having the time of their lives.

Mr. BATEY: My case is that if these regulations are left to the Minister of Labour, he will be influenced by the present regulations, and that the present regulations are of such a nature as to warrant the House in insisting that they come before us for approval before they are made.

6.13 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The point which the Committee was discussing before the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) intervened, was one which raised an important question of principle under Part II. I did not hear the earlier part of the Debate, but I heard the hon. Member for Maxton [Interruption]—I am sorry for the slip; it is only in another place that each Member is himself his own constituency—I meant the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the speech of the Minister of Labour as well as the Solicitor-General, and I confess that the answers of the Solicitor-General and the Minister seemed to me to contradict one another. The hon. Member for Bridgeton put a specific point. Suppose a grievance arises at one of the training centres and the individual concerned communicates with a Member of Parliament, is the Member of Parliament in a position to raise the case at once in this House? I gathered from the speech of the Solicitor-General that he would not be, that he would be only at liberty to discuss whether the regulations were properly made and properly applied, but from the Minister of Labour I gathered that all that for which hon. Members have been asking would be allowable. It is an important principle, because hitherto the citizen has always been able, if aggrieved, to have recourse to some person in authority who is responsible to the people. If it is an institution under a local authority, he can have recourse to the local authority, but if the institution belongs to some authority which is not in receipt of public money, he has, of course, no such redress.
In the case of an institution belonging to the British Broadcasting Corporation, for example, or the Electricity Commissioners there would be no redress, because no public money is being spent, but in this case the money is provided by the taxpayer, and the question that arises is as to whom
the aggrieved person can have recourse, or whether this board is irresponsible. That is the main point which has been raised from the Liberal and Labour benches. It now arises in a very conspicuous way. If any one raises a question with regard to the police the Home Secretary cannot say "This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police and I will give no answer." Although everyone knows that the Commissioner does bear the responsibility, still he has to be covered by a Minister in this House, and if a wrong is done the Minister can be censured. If a soldier complains of grave ill-treatment in a regiment, the Secretary for War cannot say "This is a matter for regimental administration. The Colonel is responsible and I shall not answer in the House." Everyone knows that the Minister cannot personally have had control in that particular incident, but the system is such that responsibility has to be taken by the Ministry.
Our grievance against this part of the Bill, is that the Ministry is not willing to shoulder its own responsibility, but wants to create, in between the unemployed and the nation, a buffer authority, this board which is appointed by the Government but can exercise its functions in its own way, and that while there may be occasions for Parliamentary review on particular days in the course of a year, any special grievance arising at a particular time cannot be raised in Parliament immediately. Either that is so or it is not. I gather from the Solicitor-General that it is so, and from the Minister that it is not. Perhaps some other Minister will arbitrate between them.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can we have a definite answer to that specific point?

6.17 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It depends on the answer I get from the Minister whether

I withdraw the Amendment or not. There are two distinct points that must be made clear to me. Are we to have the right to raise any complaint that may come from any individual who happens to be in a training center? Can we raise such matters here by questions just as we do with everything else? I understand the Minister to say that he has conceded all that. But to satisfy me he will have to stand up and say it now. Further, I must have accepted what is the kernel of my Amendment, as to the regulations. Will those regulations be submitted to this House for our approval before they are put into force?

6.18 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. As I read the Bill it is quite clear that an individual question can be put to the Minister and the Minister will have to answer it. With regard to the second question, it is not my intention to submit these regulations to the House for affirmative approval.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is a definite turning down of my Amendment, and I shall press it to a Division.

Mr. PALING: Do we understand that if the Minister finds out between now and Report that the Bill does not allow us to do what he states, he will alter the words accordingly?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member presses the Amendment to a Division, the situation is rather changed. I will look into the matter, and if the Bill does not do what I think it does, I will consider it again. I do not withdraw the offer I have made.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 70.

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[6.21 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Alexander, Sir William
Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Broadbent, Colonel John


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Asks, Sir Robert William
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Buchan, John


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Burnett, John George


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Boulton, W. W.
Butler, Richard Austen


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Butt, Sir Alfred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Balniel, Lord
Bracken, Brendan
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Castlereagh, Viscount
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Patrick, Colin M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Peat, Charles U.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepworth, Joseph
Petherick, M


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hornby, Frank
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Christle, James Archibald
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Radford, E. A.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsey, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cook, Thomas A.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cooke, Douglas
Jennings, Roland
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Copeland, Ida
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Knight, Holford
Robinson, John Roland


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cross, R. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leigh, Sir John
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Levy, Thomas
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, Oswald
Salt, Edward W.


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, Walter S.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Dickie, John P.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Drewe, Cedric
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Eady, George H.
Mabane, William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smithers, Waldron


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Emrys, Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurat
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Magnay, Thomas
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Fuller, Captain A. G
Maitland, Adam
Spens, William Patrick


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Gibson, Charles Granville
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stones, James


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.
Storey, Samuel


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Meller, Sir Richard James
Strauss, Edward A.


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Goff, Sir Park
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Goldie, Noel B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gower, Sir Robert
Mitcheson, G. G.
Summersby, Charles H.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sutcliffe, Harold


Granville, Edgar
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Tate, Mavis Constance


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morgan, Robert H.
Templeton, William P.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Munro, Patrick
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hanbury, Cecil
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Train, John


Harbord, Arthur
Nunn, William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hartington, Marquess of
O'Connor, Terence James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hartland, George A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)




Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Withers, Sir John James


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Womersley, Walter James


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Wells, Sydney Richard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Weymouth, Viscount
Wise, Alfred R.
Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.


NOES


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James.


Bernays, Robert
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allan


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Pickering, Ernest H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Curry, A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dagger, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

6.30 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: I beg to move, in page 32, line 1, to leave out "Contribute towards," and to insert "make contributions in respect of."
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Board to contribute, if they wish, the whole cost of a course. It was thought that the words "contribute towards" might limit them to a proportion, however large the proportion might be. This Amendment, which is little more than a drafting Amendment, is proposed in order to make it clear that they have full power as regards their contribution.

Amendment agreed to.

6.31 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 32, line 2, after "courses" to insert:
and of any charges incidental thereto, including contributions towards compensation of accidents, conducted.
The object of the Amendment is to make certain that if a person is unfortunately injured while undergoing training, he shall not be debarred by the interplay of departmental authorities or what not, from being abe to get some compensation which at present appears to be possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), who is
associated with me in this Amendment, has had a case brought to his notice in which a man who had been put on to some form of relief work lost his eye. He could get no compensation from anybody, and he was rendered unfit to carry on his original occupation, which was that of a chauffeur, because a chauffeur with one eye would be a public danger. Under the regulations and rules of administration which exist to-day such a case can happen, and I do not wish that that should be possible any longer.
Under paragraph (b) I fancy that any person who was being employed in that way by a local authority would be able to recover, but in the case of a person actually in a training camp it is doubtful who, if anybody, is his employer from the point of view of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Our object is to safeguard the position in that respect. Possibly, the point is covered somewhere else in the Bill. In such a complicated Measure it is not easy to discover whether points of this kind are covered or not. If this kind of case is not covered, I hope that action will be taken to deal with it. If it is covered, I apologise to the Committee for detaining them.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this
suggestion. The Minister himself, in his own experience, is probably aware of the desirability of some arrangement being made to bring a trainee or workman in these circumstances definitely within the compensation law. In my own experience at the Ministry of Labour I have known cases in which the difficulty has arisen of getting some standard of assessment and where there has been just some sort of honorarium to meet the case. Whether the Minister accepts this Amendment or not I think he ought to take steps to see that the essence of the Amendment is included in this Bill so as to safeguard not only the men concerned but the Unemployment Assistance Board.

6.36 p.m.

Sir A. WILSON: I appeal to the Minister to give this Amendment favourable consideration. It is within my knowledge that there is some anxiety among trainees as to whether or not they would receive fair compensation in the event of an accident. I know that at every centre a careful record is kept of every accident however trifling and that very few accidents actually occur. But some accidents do happen, particularly of the type involving the doctrine of common employment of which we recently heard so much. Those are cases in which one trainee causes accident to another by carelessness or by skylarking, which cannot be avoided when you are dealing with boys of 18. Further, when men are working at oxy-acetylene welding and electric welding it is impossible to avoid accidents altogether, and I feel sure that the training courses would be more popular if some hope were held out of a regular standard of compensation in such cases.

6.37 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words in the Bill
contribute towards the cost of the provision and maintenance of such courses
have been held by the Treasury to cover contributions of the kind which the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) contemplates. That is to say, they would give the board the power to make contributions by way of compensation in cases where persons are injured, and it is the intention that such payments should continue to be made in connection with the training
centres which may be established under the Bill. The Amendment merely refers to the power to give compensation, and does not raise the wider question mentioned by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as to whether it might or might not be desirable to introduce a definite compensation scheme. I do not go into that question, because, as I say, it is not raised in the Amendment, and I am not sure that such a proposal might not increase the charge. So far as the Amendment is concerned, the suggested power is already there, and the intention is that it should be exercised.
The objection to accepting the Amendment is that there are certain other powers incidental to the maintenance of these courses which have been, and are, held by the Treasury to be covered by the words "provision and maintenance." For example, there was a case—not a compensation case in the sense contemplated by the Amendment—where a trainee through some carelessness set fire to neighbouring property in circumstances in which he was personally liable. Under these words a grant was made to the person injured so as to prevent the trainee being made liable for the whole amount. I mention that to illustrate the fact that these words are capable of a wide meaning, but if we were to introduce the words of the Amendment and a reference to specific contributions towards compensation, they might be held to exclude the other and wider powers to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, that with the assurance that the powers contemplated are already there, and that his words might be made the basis of an argument for cutting down further powers, the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw his Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I see the hon. and learned Member's point, and I do not press the matter. I merely express the hope that between now and the Report stage consideration will be given to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), which is really what we had in mind, although perhaps we did not express it quite as well as he did.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.42 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move, in page 32, line 3, to leave out "or other body."
This Clause provides that the Unemployment Assistance Board may provide and maintain training courses and contribute towards the cost of the provision and maintenance of such courses "by the Minister or any local authority or other body." We on this side take the strongest exception to the possibility of such training courses being run by some body other than the Minister himself or the local authority. We are not quite happy at the idea of these courses being run by the Minister or by any local authority, but we certainly object to the proposal that they should be organised by any other bodies.
I do not know what the Minister has in mind in these words. He may have in mind the centres run by the Council of Social Service and similar bodies. But these words might conceivably cover training courses provided and maintained by an employer of labour. They would certainly seem to cover courses provided and maintained by an association of employers, and there are great possibilities of danger in that, not only to the men themselves but to the standards of labour and wages which have been set up for so many years. We fear that courses in the form here indicated might lead to something in the nature of Fascism—certainly to some form of test work—and might result in the reduction of standards. In our view it is essential, if training courses are to be provided at all, that they should be provided and maintained by the Minister or by local authorities, and not by any other body. No doubt the Minister will tell us the body he has in mind, but in our view the words "or other body" are far too vague and indefinite. More than that, we see in these words the possibility of an exploitation of the unemployed which none of us could visualise with any degree of satisfaction. The words are far too wide, and the possibilities are far too indefinite.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: We have been discussing this evening whether this House has effective control over the training organisations which are to be set up under this Clause, and after listening to the speeches of the Minister and the Solicitor-General, we came to the conclusion that the amount of control by the House over the Unemployment Assistance
Board in respect of these training centres is very little indeed. We understand that under this Clause the board, provided it can satisfy the Minister, which ought not to be very difficult, because he is the one who is giving it these powers, will be able to make substantial contributions to organisations entirely outside any sort of popular control at all. That is an amazing thing to do. First, we have training centres under the Ministry of Labour, over which we have direct control. We abandon them and put them under the aegis of the Unemployment Assistance Board, over which we have the most indirect control, and then public money may be paid out by the board to voluntary associations over which we have simply no control at all. I submit that this is a rake's progress. Where is this House going to stop setting up and promoting all sorts of extra-constitutional organisations without the slightest measure of Parliamentary control?
We have been told that we have some sort of control because we can raise this matter on a Vote of Supply. There are 70 odd issues on which the salary of the Minister of Labour can be challenged, and we have to assume that we can exercise effective control over this vast enterprise, this most extraordinary departure from our constitutional practice, by having one opportunity among 70 other subjects of criticising the Minister. It is rubbish, and every hon. Member knows it is rubbish. We have had some suggestion as to what is to be done. There are certain social service centres being established in Great Britain, some with the assistance of Government money and others with contributions made by philanthropic persons. The rich will do everything for the poor except get off their backs. At the present time there is a large number of philanthropically inclined persons who make contributions to the Conservative funds and to these social service centres. They make contributions to Conservative funds to stop the Income Tax being raised and to the social service centres to assist the unemployed, who are being demoralised and depressed because the Income Taxpayer will not pay more.
We have centres in South Wales like Nant-y-glo, Blaenavon, and Brynmawr, where there are something like 86 per cent. of the insurable population out of
employment. It is true that in Brynmawr some idealistic persons have done what they consider to be good work, but it is a mere drop in the ocean. I believe the Prime Minister paid a special tribute to the work being done in Brynmawr, but the most they have done is to colour-wash a couple of ugly houses. That is the purpose of the National Government. It is not to remove distress, but to whitewash it. In Nant-y-glo and Brynmawr where there are 86 per cent. of the adult insurable population out of employment, the suggestion is that you should organise social service centres in order that the men might be able to repair their own boots. You organise social services like club houses, in which men can play bagatelles, or ludo, or snakes and ladders. You first of all, by neglect or by failure to face up to your opportunities, reduce the unemployed to a position of demoralisation, and then you organise these voluntary services in order that people may be encouraged to pay a bit of conscience money. It is a shocking commentary upon social organisations in this country that, instead of according to unemployed men their rights, you dole out charity.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member seems to me to be getting rather far from the Amendment. Whether the Amendment is carried or not, it will not prevent contributions being paid towards the provision and maintenance of these courses.

Mr. BEVAN: It would prevent public money being used to subsidise voluntary organisations, and when you say I am getting rather far from the Amendment, Captain Bourne, the difficulty facing us is that we are giving wide and comprehensive powers to the Minister, and we do not know where those powers will stop. Parliament itself is not imposing any limits, and when you tell me I am out of order, you could perhaps guide me by telling me exactly what the Minister would be prevented from making a contribution towards. Then I shall know what I am not able to discuss, but under these powers the Minister will be allowed to make contributions to the Unemployment Assistance Board and to any other body, provided he agrees with them. When you say to me in this Committee that I am out of order, I say that it
is possible for an hon. Member to discuss any form of voluntary association or any organisation, because the Minister under these powers can make a contribution to anything he likes.

Mr. MAXTON: To the hunger marchers.

Mr. BEVAN: He can contribute, as my hon. Friend says, to the expenses of the hunger marchers if he likes. I suggest to the Committee that it is not possible to criticise Members on this side because they point out that these powers may be used to make contributions to any organisation whatsoever. Indeed, I should be in perfect order in saying that, provided the Unemployment Assistance Board wanted to do it and the Minister approved of it, they could give funds to Fascist organisations under this Clause. It is not sufficient to tell us that the Minister will not do it. The function of this House is to prevent his having the power to do it, and I submit that we ought not to extend this system of voluntary training to include any organisation except those organisations over which Parliament has direct control.
This point has given rise to very high feelings among some of the unemployed men. I attended a most heated discussion of unemployed men the other day as to whether or not they ought to associate themselves with a voluntary scheme for boot repairing and recreation, and the unemployed took up this line: They said, "We are citizens of this country. If the State thinks that it has with these things, hen we ought to be an obligation towards us to provide us accorded them in respect to our citizenship, and we ought not to be the recipients of private relief or charity from any person whatsoever." Many of them were exceedingly angry about it, and they said they were not going to be the recipients of charity, that these people who have come to organise these social services, while they were themselves decent persons, could not substitute as a charity something that ought to be accorded to them as a right.
That is the line that we are taking on this Bill. It is an offence against the dignity of unemployed men that public money should be handled by private people over whom Parliament has no control. The House of Commons is degenerating to a miserable level indeed in
being prepared to relinquish these powers. I would point out the extraordinary situation in which we shall be placed. There are large numbers of voluntary organisations, and the Minister will have power to select one and to reject another. Can any hon. Member who supports this proposal tell me the criteria which will decide to which organisation funds are to be given? [An HON. MEMBER: "Common sense!"] I have never seen any signs of common sense among Conservative Members yet. This is going to be an arbitrary selection. If you have a purely voluntary organisation among the unemployed themselves, run by people who might be described by the Minister as politically undesirable, some of whom might be Communists or Socialists, and they themselves organise voluntary games, the Minister will say, "No, we cannot subsidise you out of public money."

Mr. McENTEE: They are not in the Primrose League.

Mr. BEVAN: As my hon. Friend says, they are not in the Primrose League. But if another set of people come forward doing exactly the same work, carrying on exactly the same activities, but they are people of a different political complexion, although, of course, they will call themselves non-political, they will have public money. I submit that it ought not to be in the power of a Minister to make such discrimination. Public money ought not to be given out in such a way, and I appeal to the Committee to carry the Amendment. If you wish to establish training centres, if you wish to pay out public money, pay it out and establish them under the aegis of the board. If any extension is required, extend them under the aegis of the board. Once, however, you permit the board, over whom Parliament has no control, to hand out money to voluntary organisations, then you are laying yourselves open to very grave suspicion indeed. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) talked the other day about patronage. You are now saying to the Minister, "Here is unlimited money at your disposal; you can give it to whom you like; you can even go along and give it to your own constituents." That would be a remarkable situation. Some hon. Members would be able to secure money for their own constituencies with help
from other constituencies, because if a voluntary organisation is in a constituency or can be set up in a constituency, hon. Members may be able to obtain money from this fund for their own constituents which cannot be obtained for the constituents of other hon. Members.
Hon. Members may think that this is drawing a bow at a venture, but we have already had experience of it. Very high feeling has been created, because in some centres some of the money that was available has been spent on this Community Service Committee and not in other ways. Unless you have some sort of objective criteria on which to decide where, how and upon whom the money is to be spent, you must rely upon a purely subjective decision by an authoritative person. When you have reached that position, you have a possibility of endless corruption of the most serious kind and of the most deadly nature for the political democracy. You will be able to afford to the constituents of certain hon. Members amenities which will be withheld from others. I submit to the Minister that he ought to accept this Amendment, and I would point out to hon. Members—although some of them will probably get up and make speeches on what good work has been done by this and what excellent work has been done by that organisation, and how desirable these bodies are and how they ought to be supported—that if the work is good it should be done under the Unemployment Assistance Board. If it is desirable work, do it under your own organisations; if you think that it is reconditioning the unemployed or preventing them from becoming further demoralised, do it under your own aegis; but do not permit a lot of mealy-mouthed people to acquire a reputation for virtue by spending public money.

7.4 p.m.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I do not mean to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into all the descriptions he has given of much of the work, but I should like to say, in passing, that the large majority of his descriptions of the work that has been done for the unemployed is of much the same standard as his description yesterday of the whole meaning of democracy. I should, however, like to draw the attention of the Committee to what was put forward by the Royal Commission on page 340 of its report. The
Royal Commission pointed out that a great deal of good work had been done, and suggested that on certain conditions funds should be given to carry on that work. It spoke of the Society of Friends, the British Institute of Adult Education, the Settlements, the Workers' Educational Association, and the like—
which have given evidence of active interest in the provision of special facilities for unemployed workers. We should hope that alongside the official efforts, these unofficial agencies will continue their work.
On another part of the same page, the report states:
The inauguration and management of these schemes sometimes involves the voluntary associations in expenditure beyond their resources. We think that it should be possible for the official authorities, under agreed conditions, to give some financial assistance.
That is what has been done with financial assistance to voluntary organisations. But I rose particularly to draw the attention of the Minister to one point which has probably not been fully understood, and to a particular kind of work which has probably not been fully appreciated, by those who are moving this Amendment. I refer particularly to the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. I should like to ask whether those who have moved this Amendment wish all grants to that committee to be stopped? If they studied the report they would see, if they do not already know, the work which that committee is doing in training unemployed women. If they had looked at the work that has been done, they would not have lightly asked for the removal of the financial assistance. As most hon. Members know, that work is particularly concerned with domestic training. My hon. Friends opposite would do well, before they deprive these women of the chance of getting domestic service, a chance of which they are not forced to take advantage but which they accept voluntarily, to study what the result has been and to hear from some of the people who have taken advantage of that training how it has helped them. No doubt in many cases hon. Members opposite would think it better that women who cannot now get employment in the trades in which they were previously employed should not seek employment at all. That is not my opinion. I have tremendous admiration for the girls and women who
have found that they cannot now get employment in the industries in which they were employed in the past and have gone voluntarily to training centres to fit themselves to earn their own livelihood and to make themselves independent by getting such training as has been offered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Independent!"] I see a great deal of value in being independent and earning your own livelihood rather than being unemployed because the particular walk in life which is open to you is not one which you yourself would prefer. On page 326 the report states that since 1931 a total of 5,640 women have been trained through these arrangements, and that out of that number 4,263 have entered domestic service during or after the completion of their training. These centres are voluntary, this training is voluntary, and I fail to see why hon. Members opposite who have said, as the last hon. Member said, that it was right for people to go to training centres, should deny the rights of these people to go to these centres and should wish to take away the financial aid which makes it possible.

Mr. BEVAN: All I said was that, if you think that this work should be done, why do you not do it through organisations that are perfectly responsible to Parliament? Why do you do it through organisations for which this House has no direct responsibility? Why should you allow individuals over whom we have no control to spend public money?

Miss HORSBRUGH: I do not think for one moment that I ever misrepresented the hon. Member opposite. I never said that his point had not been as he has stated. I pointed out—and I thought perhaps from the applause that hon. Members agreed with me—that if this Amendment was accepted, hon. Members opposite would be perfectly satisfied to see this work of the Central Women's Committee abandoned. My hon. Friend agree with me there. I have said that the work of the central committee should be ended. I do not know whether the hon. Member, and also hon. Members on the Front Bench, agree with me when I say that it is a good thing that the people who have been working and have done yeoman service in the past on this committee, and those who have availed themselves thankfully of that work, should now realise that there are
people who are asking that their grant shall be taken away and that they may be deprived of the chance of training at that centre.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should probably not have intervened but for the speech of the last hon. Member. I hope that I shall not be accused of lecturing anyone when I suggest that she must agree that some of us have taken an interest in these matters for at least as long a time as she has. I have never seen unemployed women welcome this interference from outside bodies, even from the women's committee. I admit that this women's body has been the subject of approval of all Governments, but the hon. Lady fails to recognise first of all the point put by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). She has never answered that point. Here you are making grants of public money. Hitherto those bodies have carried on in the main without grants of public money. In certain cases the Government gave them limited sums, but here is a new proposal that no limit should be placed on them, that public money should be handed over to outside bodies to administer as they like, and that this House should have no right to control the spending of that money. It ought to be spent by a public authority.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Does my hon. Friend not see in the Bill that this has all to be done with the approval of the Minister?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, approved by the Minister, but the actual spending of the money is done by another body. The Minister approves of the body, but he cannot—and anybody who knows administration knows that he cannot—approve of every £100 that is spent. Once he has approved of the bodies they spend as they think fit.
To turn to the question of domestic service, I am surprised at what the hon. Lady has said. First of all, may I say that she is wrong about the service being voluntary? She is now being confused: she is talking about the last Act, not the Bill which we are passing. Will she please read the Clause? She is capable in other matters; I wish she were as capable in this one. In Clause 39 it is laid down that if a person does not attend
one of those training centres he is not merely to be disallowed benefit, but he will actually be classified along with the men who ill-treat their wives. It is one of a certain limited set of offences which are dealt with very drastically. Voluntary bodies of this kind, moreover, often have a religious connection. Under this Clause it is possible for a person to be compelled to go to a training centre run by a voluntary body of another religious denomination than his own. I presume that the hon. Lady will allow the unemployed to have a religious training of their own. There may well be a conflict between the individual and the body running the centre. Under this Clause the attendance is no longer voluntary. My parents in Scotland come from the Highlands and have all been domestic servants. They did not need to be trained to be domestic servants. [An HON. MEMBER: "They would need it now!"] I will try to answer the point that training for domestic service is needed now. It may be true that some servants need to be trained, but I must confess that I cannot see the need.

Miss HORSBRUGH: I pointed out that this work was voluntary in the sense that in 1931 over 5,600 women went voluntarily for training. They evidently thought that they were in need of training.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In actual fact, they did not go voluntarily. It never was really voluntary. A person was passed for training under the old Acts, and, if she went before the court of referees and did not take the training, it was tantamount to doing something which prejudiced her benefit. I have a rooted objection to spending public money the proceeds of which, even if the body be a good one, must go to a limited section of the community. Who employs domestic servants? The people who employ them are a small minority. The working class cannot employ domestic servants, and I have a fundamental objection to working-class money being used to provide domestic servants for the rich. In Glasgow they have trained women who are able to assist the working class in times of illness and distress, but this scheme is to train people to be servants of the rich. A person who employs a domestic servant must be comparatively well off. The servant has to be fed and
clothed, and payments have to be made for insurance and compensation. That means that a domestic servant cannot be kept unless—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is the time to discuss who can and who cannot employ domestic servants. The hon. Lady merely said that this was one of the type of bodies that would come under this Clause, and the question who employs domestic servants cannot be discussed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I object to public money being used to train servants for people who can pay for the training themselves. The rich people are mainly the employers of domestic servants, and, instead of setting apart a fund of their own to train them, they came and filch public funds for it. There is a good deal of nonsense talked about training domestic servants. I have lived in a big industrial city where unemployment among women is relatively higher than among men. If the mothers of these women had a sufficient income, they could train their daughters intelligently to do ordinary household duties without them going to a training centre. I have all my life mixed with ordinary working people, and a girl can have no finer training for domestic service than from her mother if she has a decent income. This scheme is a substitute for giving the mother an income herself to train the girl. Why not give the money to the mothers instead of handing it over to this private charity and enable them to equip their girls better for their work?
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) will forgive me bringing in a contentious matter, but he knows that we had the matter in the Trades Union Congress in Scotland, and they unfortunately supported it. It seems to me that this training body is a small set of people who wish to become well known and to earn distinction as cheaply as they can. There is nothing to prevent them raising all the money they need without coming to the House, but they wish to earn a reputation for being kindly disposed and willing to help the poor. The poor are as capable of looking after themselves as any body of persons. They do not need any voluntary body with State funds to do it for them. If you
will give the ordinary unemployed man and woman a decent income, they will train their daughters more capably than anybody else can, but I trust that the Minister will devote any money that he may give to these bodies to seeing that the mothers are given a decent chance to look after their families.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. KENNETH LINDSAY: This is not a new principle at all. The principle of the State subsidising voluntary institutions is a very old principle. It has been done in the Overseas Settlement Department ever since the end of the War, and all kinds of settlers have been subsidised. If the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) were here, he would agree that some valuable work has been done. The principle is much older than the Empire Settlement Act. It is as old as the form of subsidy that is given, say, to a secondary school which has inherited endowments. The phrase with regard to any other body is also inserted in Part I of the Bill. The National Council of Social Services was instrumental in helping to get this Clause put in the Bill. That body does not require great funds. If it had big funds, the voluntary nature of the work would immediately be lost. There are, however, certain administrative expenses which have to be met, and £10,000 a year is a mere bagatelle. I do not think that that will make any difference to the problem of poverty. The point is that there are people in the mining areas—unemployed men themselves—who are organising centres. In some of the areas men with a little leisure time have given the lead. Good luck to them for anything that will make some difference to the men in these areas is to be encouraged.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) discussed most of the time the Minister's powers, but that is another question. I am only saying that under the Empire Settlement Act and a great many other Acts this assistance has been given before. I do not want to go over all the other questions which hon. Gentlemen and hon. and learned Gentlemen have been discussing for four hours to-day, but I do say that the training organisations apart from the centres which the Ministry have set up have done good work. The Ministry of Labour cannot do this sort of work. You are not
going to train people for fresh employment in the centres. There is a limited amount of that kind of training that can be done in the centres, and their main advantage is that they give their men some chance of getting work when industry improves. In the National Council we are dealing with 200,000 men who are practically self-organised. It has nothing to do with Fascism or Nazism; it is based on the oldest principle in this country, the principle of voluntary organisation. On these grounds this necessary Clause may well be inserted in the Bill.

7.27 p.m.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The reason for the insertion of these words has been correctly stated by the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). Without this power the board would not be enabled to make contributions to the Central Committee for Women's Training or for such bodies as the National Council of Social Service. The board may also make arrangements with local education authorities and other bodies of that kind. Whatever views hon. Members may have on the propriety of giving

money to such bodies as these, the place to raise the question is on the Estimates. Every item appears separately in the Estimates, and therefore every question that arises as to the propriety of giving grants to any of these bodies can be properly raised and decided when the Estimates are before the House. Ever since I have been in the House the demand has been for more money for training women, and I will certainly not accept an Amendment which will not allow this to be done.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Suppose a certain sum is given to an organisation, who will audit the accounts of the money so given and certify to the House that it has been spent?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards the National Council, I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know. I really cannot answer now.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 348; Noes, 71.

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craven-Ellis, William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crooke, J. Smedley


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Alexander, Sir William
Browne, Captain A. C.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Buchan, John
Cross, R. H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crossley, A. C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burghley, Lord
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Atholl, Duchess of
Burnett, John George
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Davison, Sir William Henry


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Denville, Alfred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Dickie, John P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Donner, P. W.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Carver, Major William H.
Drewe, Cedric


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cassels, James Dale
Duckworth, George A. V.


Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Duggan, Hubert John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dunglass, Lord


Bann, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Eady, George H.


Bernays, Robert
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Edge, Sir William


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Elmley, Viscount


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Blindell, James
Christle, James Archibald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Clarry, Reginald George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Borodale, Viscount.
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Bossom, A. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Boulton, W. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cook, Thomas A.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bracken, Brendan
Cooke, Douglas
Fraser, Captain Ian


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Copeland, Ida
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Brass, Captain Sir William
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Broadbent, Colonel John
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Gibson, Charles Granville
Mabane, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Gledhill, Gilbert
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Salt, Edward W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McCorquodale, M. S.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Goff, Sir Park
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton
Savery, Samuel Servington


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Scone, Lord


Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Magnay, Thomas
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maitland, Adam
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Martin, Thomas B.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smithers, Waldron


Hanley, Dennis A.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Harbord, Arthur
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Soper, Richard


Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hartland, George A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morgan, Robert H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Spans, William Patrick


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hepworth, Joseph
Munro, Patrick
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Stones, James


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Storey, Samuel


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Connor, Terence James
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Summersby, Charles H.


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hurd, Sir Percy
Patrick, Colin M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Pearson, William G.
Templeton, William P.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peat, Charles U.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Penny, Sir George
Thompson, Sir Luke


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Jennings, Roland
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Train, John


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ker, J. Campbell
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Radford, E. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Knight, Hollord
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Law, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lees-Jones, John
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Weymouth, Viscount


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Levy, Thomas
Remer, John R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lewis, Oswald
Rickards, George William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Liddall, Walter S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock)
Robinson, John Roland
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross, Ronald D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Roes Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wise, Alfred R.


Locker-Lampoon, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Withers, Sir John James


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Major George Davies and Mr. Womersley.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Buchanan, George
Curry, A. C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cape, Thomas
Dagger, George


Batey, Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cove, William G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Dobbie, William



Edwards, Charles
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Price, Gabriel


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kirkwood, David
Rea, Walter Russell


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lawson, John James
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rothschild, James A. de


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
White, Henry Graham


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Wilmot, John


Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.



Janner, Barnett
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfred
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


John, William
Parkinson, John Allen

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th December, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment moved by the Government of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment made: In page 32, line 20, leave out "towards," and insert "in respect of."—[Sir Betterton.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 350; Noes, 65.

Division No. 114.]
AYES.
[7.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burghley, Lord
Donner, P. W.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burnett, John George
Drewe, Cedric


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Duckworth, George A. V.


Alexander, Sir William
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Duggan, Hubert John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Dunglass, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Eady, George H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Carver, Major William H.
Edge, Sir William


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cassels, James Dale
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Castlereagh, Viscount
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elmley, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Christle, James Archibald
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Bernays, Robert
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fox, Sir Gifford


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Blindell, James
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Conant, R. J. E.
Gibson, Charles Granville


Borodale, Viscount
Cook, Thomas A.
Gledhill, Gilbert


Bossom, A. C.
Cooke, Douglas
Glossop, C. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Copeland, Ida
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Goff, Sir Park


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Craven-Ellis, William
Goldie, Noel B.


Bracken, Brendan
Crooke, J. Smedley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gower, Sir Robert


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cross, R. H.
Granville, Edgar


Broadbent, Colonel John
Crossley, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Greene, William P. C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Browne, Captain A. C.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Buchan, John
Denville, Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dickie, John P.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Guy, J. C. Morrison




Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maitland, Adam
Scone, Lord


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Harbord, Arthur
Martin, Thomas B.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hartland, George A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Meller, Sir Richard James
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col, Sir Walter D.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Smithers, Waldron


Hepworth, Joseph
Morgan, Robert H.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moss, Captain H. J.
Soper, Richard


Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Munro, Patrick
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nall, Sir Joseph
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Spens, William Patrick


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Nunn, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
O'Connor, Terence James
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stones, James


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Storey, Samuel


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


Jennings, Roland
Pearson, William G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peat, Charles U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Penny, Sir George
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Summersby, Charles H.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sutcliffe, Harold


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Petherick, M.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Templeton, William P.


Knight, Holford
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thompson, Sir Luke


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pybus, Sir Percy John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Radford, E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on.T.)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Train, John


Lees-Jones, John
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Levy, Thomas
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lewis, Oswald
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Liddall, Walter S.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rickards, George William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndew'th)
Robinson, John Roland
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Weymouth, Viscount


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ross, Ronald [...].
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mabane, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wise, Alfred R.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Withers, Sir John James


McKie, John Hamilton
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Salt, Edward W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)



McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Womersley.
Major George Davies and Mr.


Magnay, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dobbie, William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edwards, Charles
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Buchanan, George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Cape, Thomas
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Hicks, Ernest George


Curry, A. C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Holdsworth, Herbert




Janner, Barnett
Mainwaring, William Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Jenkins, Sir William
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Salter, Dr. Alfred


John, William
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major James
Sinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, David
Nathan, Major H. L.
White, Henry Graham


Lawson, John James
Owen, Major Goronwy
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Paling, Wilfred
Wilmot, John


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen



Lunn, William
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McEntee, Valentine L.
Price, Gabriel
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Rea, Walter Russell

CLAUSE 37.—(Persons to whom and circumstances in which allowances may be granted.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 32, line 25, after "allowance," to insert
sufficient to provide the normal necessaries of life in this country."—[Mr. Mabane.]

7.55 p.m.

Mr. MABANE: On a point of Order. May I ask why the Amendment standing in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends has not been called?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment has one of two effects. Either it does not alter the meaning of the Clause, in which case it is unnecessary, or it does, in which case it imposes a charge which is not within the scope of the Financial Resolution.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 25, to leave out "may," and to insert "shall."
The Parliamentary Secretary said the other day that it was a rule of government never to leave out "may" and insert "shall," but on this occasion we think there is a point of very great substance to which that general rule should not apply. Here we have the setting up a new body which is taking over part of the functions of the Poor Law, and that new body will definitely take over the same responsibility as is laid upon the Poor Law authority in this country at the present time. Under the Poor Law, if an individual suffers or dies because of any negligence on the part of any officer, that officer is indictable. We would like to know who is indictable under the board as a result of the duties which have been taken over from the Poor Law, whether it is an officer of the board, the secretary of the
board, or the Minister of Labour who would be held responsible.
In earlier stages of this discussion we have drawn attention to the difficulties of demarcation of function between the different parts of this tripartite scheme. Hitherto, we have been drawing attention to the clashes of authority, policy and function between the Minister of Labour in administering the unemployment system and the functions of the two boards. Here we are drawing attention to a blurring of responsibility between the Unemployment Assistance Board and the public assistance authority. At first sight it would seem that by this Clause the ancient rights of a citizen of this country to obtain relief in the face of necessity and urgency are being quietly abrogated, and that the ultimate responsibility of the Poor Law is disappearing. Upon a superficial study of the Clause, that would appear to be the case, but in the Seventh Schedule it is set out:
This paragraph shall not apply to the granting of relief in respect of the medical needs of any person or affect any powers or duties under section seventeen of the Poor Law Act, 1930 (which relates to relief in cases of sudden or urgent necessity).
That might cover the case, but I have very great doubt as to whether it really does. Suppose a man applies to the board, it is decided that he comes under Part II of the Bill and he is awarded a scale of benefit which is insufficient, and, as a result of that continuing for some time, he dies. Who would be responsible? The Poor Law officer or the officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board? If so, they would be very unjustly treated in being held responsible in a case for which, under the terms of this Bill, they would have no responsibility whatever. They are not allowed, on the face of it, to give outdoor relief to any person to whom Part II of the Bill applies. There is definitely a great blurring of responsibility, and accidents
may happen. It may very well be that some individual, having been judged to come under Part II of the Bill, might not be aware of the fact that he has any title or recourse to any other individual, and being in that state, he might run into emergency and, as a result, might die. Again, who would be responsible? Any individual might be taken ill and for some reason an emergency might arise, and there might be great necessity. He might go to the relieving officer, although he came under Part I of the Bill, and the relieving officer would say: "Are you under Part II of the Unemployment Act?" and the man would say, "Yes." In those circumstances, the relieving officer might very well wish to make inquiries and find out whether that was the case. The local office of the Unemployment Assistance Board might be closed, on account of its being a Saturday afternoon or for some other reason, and on the face of it he would not be entitled to assistance. While these inquiries were being made and the facts were being substantiated, anything might happen.
We have moved this Amendment in order to make it clear that a responsibility shall lie on the authority, and that there shall be no abrogation of the rights which have hitherto prevailed under the Poor Law; and, further, in order to obtain an explanation as to what would happen in this period of uncertainty which will exist. As our earlier discussions have disclosed, there are bound to be uncertainties in cases which are on the borderline between the three parties who will now be concerned in giving help to the unemployed. We want to make it quite clear that there shall be a responsibility, and that, where there is uncertainty, that uncertainty shall be cleared up.

8.1 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: On the point which the hon. Member has raised, the position is, I think, clear; and I think it is also clear that the sort of cases which he has put would not in any way be met by the Amendment. As he has pointed out, the statutory duties of the relieving officer in all cases of emergency are unaffected by the Bill. As regards the case of insufficient allowance by the board, it is the duty of the board to give a sufficient allowance, and, if they do
not give a sufficient allowance, it would be undesirable that they should rely, in the ordinary course, on some other officer going round to see whether a sufficient allowance was or was not being given. But in the case of an insufficient allowance, or in any other emergency, the relieving officer's duties will remain unaffected. The mere insertion of the word "shall" instead of "may" would certainly have no effect at all on the amount of the allowance, which, under the Bill, is to be determined by the officers of the board. All cases of emergency will remain to be dealt with as at present under the statutory duty of the relieving officer, and, of course, the board will repay any sum given in such circumstances by the relieving officer.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: If the relieving officer is visited by a person who happens to be under the Unemployment Assistance Board, and if the relieving officer or his public assistance committee is of the opinion that the person is not getting sufficient, will they be allowed to supplement the amount that the person gets from the board?

8.3 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not, as I understand, in cash. I think that that is clear under the Schedule. In such a case as the hon. Member puts, I should have thought that representations would be made. Parliament is putting on this board and its officers the duty of giving a sufficient allowance to meet the need, and I should have thought that, if the relieving officer formed the opinion that the allowance was insufficient, he might make representations in the proper quarter; but there would be no legal right to give relief unless in cases of emergency. Surely it is right that the board should feel that it has the responsibility of giving a sufficient allowance.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: This is not, perhaps, a big point in comparison with some of the Amendments that are on the Paper, but it is rather important. In practice what happens is this: The Commissioners in Durham have told people that their allowance is such-and-such an amount. Then those people have come up against circumstances in which the allowance has not proved to be sufficient. The relieving officer has given them half-a-crown, or it might be five shillings, extra, and
the commissioners have regularly said, "You can either reduce them by half-a-crown or five shillings, or we will reduce them by half-a-crown or five shillings. That has been the practice, and I should like to ask who will be responsible in such a case. I think it is as well that this should be made clear, because I am of the opinion that ultimately the board will impinge upon the duties of the public assistance committees in such a way as to make one of the two unworkable. That is my view, in the light of the experience that we have had. It would be well that we should be clear as to whether, in cases such as the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) mentioned, people can have their income supplemented by the relieving authority without any difficulty, or whether the Unemployment Assistance Board is likely to lower their income.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: The point raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is one of great practical importance. I do not, however, wish to pursue it, but rather to be certain about what I would call the constitutional issue. I understand from the Solicitor-General that it is the duty of the board to give a sufficient allowance, and the assumption is that they will do so, but in the event of their failing to give a sufficient allowance, and in the event of an emergency arising there from and the clients of the board dying, the Solicitor-General tells me that the public assistance relieving officer will be responsible. The responsibility, however, ought to be on the officer of the board through whose negligence that situation has arisen. I think that this point is one of substance, and I hope that the Minister will give his mind to it and will try to relieve the anxiety which exists in regard to it.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: It seems to me that as there may be two officers acting in the case of one man, there may easily be a difference of opinion between them. The first that will act will be the officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board, but, if the grant which they make, and which on his advice they consider to be adequate, is proved to be inadequate to the satisfaction of another officer—the local Poor Law officer—he himself will have a responsibility, and he will be indictable if he fails to carry out his respon-
sibility. If, in order to carry out what he conceives to be his duty, and to save himself from being indicted under the Poor Law, he gives an additional amount, the Minister will have to decide which of the two is right. This is a case which in fact has arisen in Durham, and no doubt in other places as well—not, it is true, between the same officers, but in exactly similar circumstances to those which no doubt will arise in many instances in the future. We ought to know, before we pass from this Bill, what is going to happen in the event of that situation arising.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I should like to know why the word "may" is being preferred to the word "shall" in this particular sentence. After all, Clause 37 lays down pretty stringent conditions which have to be satisfied. The person has to be a person to whom this Part of the Act applies; then there are paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), paragraph (c) being the needs test itself; the applicant has to satisfy the board that he is in need of an allowance. And, when all these conditions have been satisfied, it still only remains that he "may" be granted an allowance. I do not see why the word "may" is preferred, unless it be owing to a natural reluctance on the part of the Government to commit themselves at all to anything. When, however, we come to Sub-sections (2) and (3), which provide for cutting down the amount of any allowance, we find it laid down that the matter "shall" be determined by reference to need, and so on. Therefore, whenever it is ncessary to restrict what is being done, the language is perfectly definite, and the old prejudice against using the word "shall" simply goes by the board. It is only when the unfortunate person's rights are being stated that the Front Bench cannot go further than a tepid "may." I would ask them whether they can not be a little more definite, even if only for the psychological effect. The rights under this Bill may not be as great as many of us would wish, but, such as they are, let them be as definite as they can be made. Therefore, I would ask the Government to accept this alteration.

8.14 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: In my constituency, as I mentioned on the
Second Reading, I had 25 cases in one town where benefit was refused, and where afterwards it was found that 24 out of the 25 people concerned were perfectly entitled to benefit. As a result of this refusal of benefit, all those people had to go on to the Poor Law for three weeks. If the word "may" is allowed to remain as it is here, it seems quite likely that these unfortunate people may be treated as they were before, and refused benefit and be put on to the Poor Law when they are perfectly entitled to benefit, whereas, if the word "shall" is used they would in fact receive the benefit, and if afterwards it was found that they were not entitled to it, they could then revert to the Poor Law.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: I am not sure in the circumstances that I would not prefer the word "may" to remain rather than insert "shall." I can imagine circumstances in which a man may make an application for an allowance to the unemployment assistance officer and in which, provided an allowance of any amount is given him, the obligation on the officer will be discharged and, although it may be miserably inadequate, it will not be possible for the applicant to go to the relieving officer and get it supplemented. The officer of the board may be in some doubt as to whether or not any payment should be made, and on the first application he may give as small an amount as possible. If the word "shall" was there, he would have to give an allowance, and it might be inadequate, and the man could not go to the relieving officer. If, on the other hand, the obligation was not imposed on the officer to give an allowance, the applicant could receive a sufficient amount from the relieving officer.
If I were a person coming under Part II and I asked the unemployment assistance officer for an allowance, and he said he was in some doubt as to whether I was a person to whom the Act applied, and in any case he could not give me anything until he had made up his mind about it, I should be entitled to go to the relieving officer and claim public assistance. Then the public assistance committee would itself be interested in securing that I was transferred as a burden to the Act, whereas if the unemployment
assistance authority were under a specific obligation to relieve me I should have inadequate relief in the meantime and, because I received that relief, unless I could show that I was in additional medical need, I should not be able to get any additional assistance from the public assistance authority. So, although I admit that the line of demarcation is drawn between the board and the public assistance authority in so blurred a way that I can see extraordinary complications arising, nevertheless I think I should prefer to allow the law to impose an obligation upon the public assistance committee, in the first instance to relieve any distressed citizen rather than have a form of words which may modify the obligation of the public assistance authority and transfer the same obligation with the same force to a new authority.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: I am rather surprised at the hon. Member's line of argument, I thought it was held on the part of the promoters of the Bill that its real purpose is to keep unemployed people between 16 and 65 away from the Poor Law. It seems to me that the duty of relieving destitution is already placed by Statute upon the public assistance officer. The reason why we do not want unemployed people to fall on public assistance is twofold, first, that no one feels it to be desirable that people who are unemployed through no fault of their own should have their needs relieved by the Poor Law, and secondly, that the tendency of everyone who is entrusted with the administration of these funds is, wherever possible, to push the responsibility on to the local authority, which has the effect of putting it on to the ratepayers rather than the Taxation Fund.

Mr. BEVAN: The public assistance authority itself would be interested in securing the transfer of the person to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and machinery is set up in the Bill to enable them to make their appeal so that there will be no indefinite charge on the local rates of a person who properly ought to be chargeable to the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. CURRY: The Clause states the alternative open to the board. It may become a permanent charge upon the local rates. It seems to me that the only
way out is to make it mandatory upon the board to make an allowance. Unless we do that I can see all sorts of overlapping. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has pointed out what is happening in Durham, where cases are being dealt with inside the same family, where the public assistance committee give a supplemental allowance, and the Commissioners come along and say, "If you are going to continue that allowance on this ground, we are going to reduce the transitional payment,' and when one makes any representation, the public assistance committees feel that they are being interfered by people who have no right to interfere with them. The simplicity of the position would be very much greater if we could make it mandatory upon the board. There seems to be no objection to the word "shall" in other parts of the Bill, and I hope the Minister will take another look at the Clause and see if he cannot accept the Amendment.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: May I try to relieve the apprehensions of the hon. Members for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and East Birkenhead (Mr. White)? The procedure under the Bill is that a man will apply to the officer of the board. There is no destitution test in the Bill. It is precisely because we want to get away from the Poor Law that we have specifically not put such a test in the Bill. Therefore, a man's needs are not going to be assessed on that basis. We wish to differentiate the whole scheme from the Poor Law as far as we can. The officer will make a determination of what he believes to be the man's needs in accordance with regulations approved by the House. In the Schedule the local authority is specifically prohibited from supplementing that allowance in cash or in kind, as an ordinary, normal, weekly supplementation. They will not be allowed to say, "We think 30s. a week insufficient for this man. We think he ought to get 32s. 6d., and we will, therefore, give him 2s. 6d. a week." But the Bill does not remove from the relieving officer the statutory duty to relieve under Section 17 of the Poor Law Act, 1930, in cases of sudden and urgent necessity. If a man had been given 30s. on Thursday, and on the following Wednesday he came round and said, "There is
no food in the house at all," the relieving officer would be compelled to give him an order to relieve a sudden and urgent necessity, and in that case, under the Schedule, the Assistance Board would have to repay to the local authority the cost of giving that supplementation. The officers of the local authority will be bound to relieve sudden or urgent necessity, and subject to the Seventh Schedule they will be able to reclaim it from the board. But they will not be able to say, "We consider that the general scales of the board for this particular area are not sufficient, and we will raise them all by giving an extra 2s. 6d. all round." I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East will see that the apprehensions which he feels will not be realised in practice.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

(1) In page 32, line 33, leave out "earn sufficient for his needs," and insert "maintain himself and his dependants at such a reasonable standard as he would be able to do were he in normal employment."
(2) In line 34, leave out from "needs" to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. Hicks.]

The CHAIRMAN: Of the two Amendments standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), the second is definitely out of order as going beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution. I think, without definitely committing myself, that the first Amendment is in order if allowed to stand alone, but in those circumstances I am not sure whether the hon. Member would care to, move it.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 32, line 33, to leave out "earn sufficient for his needs," and insert:
maintain himself and his dependants at such a reasonable standard as he would be able to do were he in normal employment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the workers should suffer no impairment in their general standard through unemployment or part-time employment. It is to enable the unemployed and their dependants to live as they normally would have lived providing they were in ordinary employment. It raises, in the light of present knowledge, an exceedingly important issue. The
point is whether or not we are to have in the background of our social life a subnormal section of the community, and whether they are to be permanently unable to maintain themselves at the standard at which they would be able to maintain themselves were they employed. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country whose hunger will not be satisfied. This raises a tremendously important issue because once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament no substantial action will be taken for a long time to come to change the general conditions laid down in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I want to make it clear that the Amendment is not out of order and I will therefore allow the hon. Member to move it, but from his argument I am afraid that he is trying to persuade the Committee to do something which would go beyond the Financial Resolution. May I call his attention to the wording of the particular Clause which his Amendment covers? The Amendment relates to Sub-section (1, b), which contains one of the conditions or qualifications on which an allowance may be made. The words are in Sub-section (1, b) to the effect that the applicant either has no work, or has only such part-time or other work as not to enable him to earn a certain amount. It is that which the hon. Member wants to alter, and the Amendment does not alter the allowance which is paid to him at all. That is the reason why I did not quite understand how the first Amendment of the hon. Member could have any force or effect whatever without the second one, which was definitely out of order.

Mr. HICKS: I certainly bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis. The point which I am particularly desirous of conveying in my Amendment to the proposal in the Bill is that the man on part-time employment or who is unemployed should have a standard of living equal to that which would ordinarily obtain provided he was in ordinary employment.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the Amendment of the hon. Member would not have that effect if taken by itself. The Amendment does not affect in any way the question of the amount of the allowance to be obtained. It only has the effect, if it has any effect at all,
of slightly altering the class of people who may apply for allowances.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: Could it not be accepted as a definition of the term "sufficient for his need"? It is an attempt to define what his needs are and to provide that they should be kept in such a condition. Could you accept it in that way?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not see my point. Whatever alteration might be made in these words, it would not effect what he wants. I saw that the point desired to be achieved by the two Amendments of the hon. Member came under his Amendment to leave out paragraph (c), and therefore I am afraid that the whole point which the hon. Member wants to raise by this Amendment is beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Could not the hon. Gentleman, in accepting your Ruling, raise the narrow point of the man earning less than when he was in normal employment? If the man had no work or only such part-time or intermittent work as not to allow him to earn sufficient for his needs, could not the point be raised within the narrow scope of your Ruling? I presume that that is the affect of your Ruling?

The CHAIRMAN: That is quite right. It is only on that point that I was enabled to think that the Amendment of the hon. Member was in order. What the Amendment really means is in order, but the speech of the hon. Member in favour of it was an argument in favour of something it does not mean and which is out or order. May I give an illustration in this way. If he were to move an Amendment to make paragraph (b) run thus:
That he has no work or only such part-time work as not to enable him to earn £1,000 a year"—
it would be in order, but it would not alter in the very slightest degree the amount of the allowance, because the allowance is covered by the words, providing the applicant has to prove also
that he is in need of an allowance

Mr. BUCHANAN: Has this Committee any power without going outside the Financial Resolution? The Financial Resolution alludes to the relieving of need. The Committee now feel that we
ought to define need. The point of the Amendment is, that it is an attempt to define what is need. This is a test of need and, therefore, I submit that it comes within the financial scope of the Resolution. The Financial Resolution merely governs need but does not define what need is, leaving it to the board to define. The Amendment attempts to say that the board shall define what need is, but only within the limits of the Amendment that is attempted to be moved.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is right, and if he had put down an Amendment in some form or other defining the word "need," I have no doubt that it would have been in order, but we are dealing with one particular Amendment, which certainly does not define "need."

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the Committee is desirous of raising this point, would you allow us, in the circumstances, to draft a manuscript Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I may answer that question at once. I always consider manuscript Amendments when they are handed in, but such Amendments do sometimes put the Committee in some difficulty.

Mr. LAWSON: We accept your Ruling. This Amendment deals with persons who are to be considered for an allowance. What we wish to do is to add to the people who work part time or intermittently the persons who are unable to maintain themselves in a certain standard of life. The Amendment simply enlarges the type of person who is to be considered for an allowance.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not saying anything which is contrary to my Ruling. I repeat that the Amendment as it stands by itself is in order, but, if the hon. Member who moves it imagines that it is going to do something which it does not and makes a speech arguing in favour of greater allowances than are covered by the Resolution, then his speech is out of order. That is my point.

Mr. HICKS: The discussion has helped to clear up certain points in regard to the validity of the Amendment. It is impossible for me under the interpretation that has been given to elaborate the
argument which I wanted to make for the purpose of establishing those people who are in part-time employment or who are unemployed in a standard of living equal to that which they would have when in employment. Therefore, I think it would be proper to reconsider the matter and to submit to you, perhaps at a later date, a manuscript Amendment so that we can see whether we are able to cover the point.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it the hon. Member does not wish to move the Amendment.

Mr. HICKS: That is so.

Miss RATHBONE: Will you elaborate your Ruling by pointing out the portion of the Financial Resolution which puts the next Amendment out of order?

The CHAIRMAN: No, I do not think I can be asked to do that. I cannot be asked to give a lecture on the Financial Resolution. I can only deal with points as they arise.

8.42 p.m.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: I beg to move, in page 32, line 39, after "household," to insert:
("provided that such needs shall not be assessed at less than three shillings per week in respect of each dependent child.")
It may appear on the face of it to be a little contradictory to suggest that 3s. should be paid under Part II when the proposal for 3s. under Part I was defeated. May I say, in my humble judgment, that the cases are not parallel. I listened to the whole Debate on Part I with regard to allowances for children and eventually, because of the argument used about upsetting the finance of the Bill, I refrained from voting, although I was strongly in favour of 3s. and I thought that a case had been made out for it. It was, however, a question of balancing accounts and that caused me to hesitate at that juncture. Under Part I where a person is insured he may have other reserves and assets and his credit is good, when, unfortunately, he comes out of work, but under Part II the householder has been stripped of his assets, otherwise he gets less benefit under Part II, because his means are taken into consideration. Very often his credit has been stopped at the shop, or at the Co-operative store, wherever he
does any business, because people realise that he has been out of work so long. Therefore his needs are greater. Whatever reserves he may have had have become more or less exhausted. His benefit from the friendly society and so on has been stopped and the whole position is far worse under Part II than under Part I. Many authorities are already given the 3s. in respect of allowances for children and even considerably more than 3s. The cost of giving 3s. would not be as much to the State as would be inferred from answers that have been given to questions.
Who to-day would say that 3½d. per day is enough to keep a dependent child? I refuse to attempt to defend a proposal of that description. I am not asking for anything outrageous in my Amendment. I am asking for 5d. a day to keep a dependent child. Surely I do not need to elaborate the arguments when I ask that the increase shall be from 3½d. to 5d. per day. The authorities that are already giving more than 3s. can be quoted, if necessary. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is absent. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the humane aspect of the question. Those of us who have had experience of the Minister of Labour know how humane and kind-hearted he is, but the people outside would not judge so when the sum of 2s. is allowed for each dependent child. It is so easy to make out a case, but so difficult to answer it. The Government will be judged and this House will be judged on the basis that if we pass 2s. we think that that is sufficient to maintain a dependent child. I shall be told that 2s. has always been the amount, but we do not want to go on the principle "as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be." Because it has been wrong in the past there is no reason why the wrong should be perpetuated. Every party in the State has been responsible for it, but now that we have reopened the question in this new Measure one party only will be responsible, and that is the Government of the day, in the eyes of the people of the country for this 2s.
We are anxious for the success of this Measure. It has been traduced up and down the country, in our opinion, most unjustly. It is a good Measure, it contains vast improvements in the law, and
if it had been brought in by a Socialist Government it would have been acclaimed as a heaven-sent Measure. I do not want the Minister, shall I say, to spoil the ship for a halfpenny worth of paint. It may be said that it will be costly to increase the allowance. It will not cost so much as would appear on the face of it because a large number of local authorities are already allowing 3s., and more, and all we are asking now is that it should be made statutory. Those who have had experience on the bench as magistrates know that in cases of separation the allowance is always based on the basis of 2s. plus 1s. out of the father's contribution, and under the new system I am sure that the amount would be increased and the father would have to pay at least 1s. more than the statutory amount. Therefore, it would benefit a large number of people who at present are not getting what we consider a fair amount.
It may be said, also, that it is the duty of the father and mother to contribute something out of their allowances towards the children's allowance, but the children's allowance is a specified amount. If there were no fixed amount for the father and mother and the child it might be argued that it is a collective amount, but this is a specific amount of 2s. and I cannot see anyone possibly defending such a proposal. I want the Government to get any credit there is to be had out of this, and they can only have it by doing this voluntarily. I hope they will realise that the country is in favour of this proposal and will be far more in favour of the Measure than they are if the statutory amount of the allowance for children is fixed at 3s. I have been amazed at the amount of support I have received in the House since this proposal was put on the Order Paper. Loyal supporters of the Government have asked me if they could add their names to it, and if the Orders of the House had allowed it I am certain that we could have filled the Order Paper with names.

An HON. MEMBER: You will not fill the Lobby.

Sir J. HASLAM: I was coming to that. Whether hon. Members will follow me into the Lobby is in the lap of the gods, or is it in the hands of the Whips, or somebody else? But I do desire the Minister to accept the proposal and thus
prevent loyal supporters of the Government like myself having to separate ourselves from the Government on a matter of this sort. We regard it as vital, and our loyalty to the children of this land demands that we should insist on the Amendment.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: After the moving appeal made to the Parliamentary Secretary by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) it needs very few words from me to emphasise the necessity for the Government to accept the Amendment. We are now recovering from the trade depression of 1932. There are signs and indications that the trade of the country will continue to improve, and having in mind the fact that the unemployed have had their benefit reduced the Government ought to increase the children's allowance from 2s. to 3s. per week.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee ought to understand the Amendment they are discussing. There is no question whatever of an allowance to children here, it is a question of the assessment of need, and the point of the Amendment is to give a certain standard as to need. It is not an allowance at all.

Mr. MORRIS: I am obliged to you, Mr. Chairman, for calling me to order. You mentioned the word "need," and that is the gist of my argument. In a later Sub-section of Clause 37 it states that the expression "need" does not include medical needs. It is for that very reason that I object to the allowance being only 2s. per week.

The CHAIRMAN: And I object to the hon. Member talking about an allowance. He must really read the Clause and the Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: I will try and keep within the limits of your ruling. The hon. Member for Bolton said that he wanted the amount increased from 3½d. to 5d. per day; that is my desire. I do not think that any hon. Member can honestly say that 5d. per day is too much in the case of a child.

Mr. HUDSON: May I point out that there is nothing whatever about 3½d. per day in the Bill, or about 5d. per day.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I think the Parliamentary Secretary might allow you, Mr.
Chairman, to rule as to what is right and what is wrong, and not draw your attention to it.

The CHAIRMAN: The Parliamentary Secretary has as much right to call my attention to a question of order as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).

Mr. MORRIS: In assessing the needs of children I maintain that the Government have not made sufficient allowance for the needs of children in the early years of life. We want this country to become an A1 nation. If we were faced with some calamity the amount of money necessary would be easily forthcoming, and I hope the Government will take that view in this respect and accept the Amendment.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: In rising to support the Amendment I must point out some of its dangers. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the Amendment deals with the question of the percentage of need. In dividing household income into separate individuals as a past member of a board of guardians, I see great danger. I can quite see that in assessing means and saying that we shall take each child in accordance with the Act of Parliament at 3s., and then lessening the amount of the other members of the family, the household income would not be as good as the Mover of the Amendment would like it to be. There is the danger. At the same time it is necessary that Parliament should safeguard the welfare of the children. As to whether this is the best way of doing it, I have doubt. I wish that the Chairman had been able to accept an Amendment which he has ruled out of order.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is a difference between this class of unemployed and those under the old public assistance. He said that in that case a destitution test would be applied, but that in this case it would not be applied. I take it he means that they would be treated more generously in this class than are those who are already on public assistance. The Parliamentary Secretary will not argue that 3s. per week is too high a figure at which to assess the need of a child. We have heard many arguments as to whether the
British Medical Association were correct in their figures. No one has ever suggested that 3s. was too much. It is generally agreed that 3s. is not more than the need of a child. A very important point was made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). These people are in a different category. The parent has already been unemployed for at least six months, and it follows that any resources he may have had at the beginning of the six months, have been drawn on heavily. The household, therefore, would be poorer than at the beginning of the six months. Our case for the Amendment is that it is very modest. We see its dangers, but we are prepared to risk them.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I think I can safely say that I agree with a great deal of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Macdonald). He has talked from his practical experience as a member of a public assistance committee. He quoted something which I had said about destitution. If I remember rightly, what I said on the Second Reading was that the distinction we were making now was that whereas under the old Poor Law a man had to become destitute before he could be given assistance, under this Bill it was possible to give him assistance that would prevent him becoming destitute. That is the intention of the Government. The hon. Members for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) and North Salford (Mr. J. P. Morris) talked about 2s. and 3s. They no doubt had in mind the rates of benefit under Part I. No one to my knowledge has ever suggested in the past history of unemployment insurance that benefit was meant to be maintenance. Therefore 2s. has never been related to maintenance or to the amount required to maintain a child. Hon. Members opposite know that just as well as I do, because most of them trooped into the Lobby behind the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) in the last Parliament against an Amendment moved by Miss Jenny Lee to raise the amount to 5s. Let us get that out of our mind.
What we are dealing with now is the question of need, the figure at which need can be assessed. The hon. Member for Ince was quite right when he said
that the duty of this board is to consider the need of the household as a whole, as a unit. You will not necessarily achieve what hon. Members who moved the Amendment have in view by laying down certain arbitrary figures as to certain of the components of that unit, while leaving variable the remainder of the figures dealing with the remaining members of that unit. Let me assume for the purpose of argument that the need of a man and his wife is assessed at 20s., and that you come along and say that the need of the child is assessed at 3s. If someone believes that the need of a man, wife and two children should be only 24s. and not 26s., you do not get 26s. by saying that the need of the two children is 3s. each, because it is open for someone then to come along and say, "Instead of giving 20s. as the need of the man and wife, in this particular case I shall assess their need at 18s." That would defeat the whole object.
I do hope that hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment will believe me when I say that that is not merely a debating point, but that it goes to the very root of the matter. They will not achieve what apparently they have in view by the Amendment. On the contrary, the Amendment will go very far indeed to defeat it, by laying down the opinion of this House by implication that 3s. is the appropriate need of a child. I am not going to stand here and say that 2s. or 3s. or 4s. is the appropriate need of a child, because I am dealing in this Bill, and the board will be dealing, with the need of a family as a whole.

Mr. LOGAN: You mean a household.

Mr. HUDSON: A household. If a household contains children of different ages, I assume, without giving any guarantee, that when the board comes to draw up its regulations, which will be submitted to this House, it will make provision for assessing the need of a child of 15 at a different rate from that of the child of two years. Therefore, hon. Members would go a long way towards defeating the object we all have in view, by laying it down that 3s. is in any way an appropriate figure for children as a whole.

Mr. COVE: That is an assumption. What right have you to say that?

Mr. HUDSON: There is at least the safeguard for hon. Members that the
regulations under which the board will work cannot come into operation until this House has passed an affirmative resolution. Therefore although we have every sympathy, as every one has, with the objects of the Amendment, I hope my hon. Friends will take it from me that this is not the way to achieve them, but that, having set up deliberately an expert board, and having charged it with the duty of going into these questions and producing for the approval of the Minister, and of this House, regulations covering the assessment of need of a household, including all the various contingencies of different types of children, the way to get the best results out of that is not first of all to say that in respect of one unit and one unit alone of a household, an arbitrary figure of 3s. is the appropriate one.

Sir J. HASLAM: On a point of Order. The Parliamentary Secretary accuses me of saying that 3s. is an appropriate amount. I never used such words.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Sir J. HASLAM: It is an explanation.

9.5 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I am afraid I do not agree with what has just been said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I think that if we put these words into the Bill the board when they deal with these cases are more likely to give at least what they consider to be in accordance with the need of the child instead of leaving it, as I am afraid they might easily do, at the rate which is at present laid down.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure what the hon. and gallant Member is dealing with. There is no rate laid down here. The hon. and gallant Member seems to be referring to something which has been dealt with under Part I of the Bill and has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment now before us.

Sir W. BRASS: I was referring to the need as it is assessed at the moment by public assistance committees in the country. I do not mean that it is laid down in this Bill but that it is laid down, as a sort of general rule throughout the country at the present time. I feel that if we alter what is in the Bill and suggest that the need of the child shall be laid
down as not less than 3s. we shall give the board some indication on which to act. I do not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that to lay it down that the child's assessment should be not less than 3s. would necessarily mean that the other people in the household—not the family—would be assessed at less. I see no reason at all why that should be so. If we put in this Amendment it would indicate to the board that we consider that the assessment of children should not be less than 3s. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that we should include these words.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I was pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the 2s. children's allowance had never been regarded as adequate. That is an admission which most of us were pleased to hear. With regard to the Amendment, it should he pointed out that it does not instruct the board to stabilise the children's allowance at 3s. It is laying down a minimum. As one who has had considerable experience in Poor Law administration I would rather see the Amendment carried than leave the matter entirely to the board. In other cases, Parliament has laid down a minimum figure for children. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts the minimum payable to a child is 3s. a week and the maximum is 6s. That figure of 3s. was inserted many years ago as a safeguard and in order to provide an irreducible minimum. In the case of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 5s. is allowed for the first child, and 3s. for any others. While there is a good deal of sound sense in the argument that this might best be left to the board without any stipulation, yet I feel that there should be an instruction that not less than 3s. is to be the amount allowed for a child. The balance of advantage I think lies with the Amendment and I hope the Mover will have the courage to carry it to a Division. The Parliamentary Secretary to-night and on the Second Reading said the intention was to remove the able bodied poor from the Poor Law altogether. He has always led us to believe that the unemployed who would come under Part II were likely to be better treated under this Bill than they are being treated now. I hope he is right but I think time will prove him wrong. Having regard to all the circumstances of
the case, I think the Committee ought to express itself on this Amendment and I for one will support it if it is carried to a Division.

9.11 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The Committee appears to be in some difficulty about this Amendment. It is true that technically and from the point of view of drafting, the Amendment leaves much to be desired. Indeed, in addition to the difficulties already pointed out the effect of the Amendment apparently would be to provide that the needs of all the dependents should be assessed at "not less than 3s. per child"—not the needs of the children alone but the needs of all the dependents. Therefore, if we approach this Amendment, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, as a business Amendment to a business scheme, I think we should find a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. COCKS: It is not a business scheme.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member will always, I am sure, take every possible opportunity to prevent anybody from agreeing with him on this. After all, however, that is not really the issue before the Committee at present. The issue before the Committee is a second edition of the issue, which was before the Committee at an earlier stage, namely: Have the Government faced the whole question of the amount necessary for the children's allowance? That is a point which those of us who opposed the Government at an earlier stage have to drive home. Even if this Amendment is, as I admit it is, one against which many objections can be urged, as an Amendment to this particular scheme, in this particular place, it is, nevertheless part of the contention which we have pressed upon the Government and to which we have received no satisfactory reply, a contention on which the Government appear at the present moment to have no settled policy. Therefore, in spite of all the objections that may he urged against doing so, I propose on this occasion to support my hon. Friend in the Lobby, though he failed to support me in the Lobby on a previous occasion.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I wish to reinforce What my Noble Friend the Member for
Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has said. The Parliamentary Secretary made a very clever and quite unanswerable debating speech. That is what we expect from him when Amendments of this kind are moved because there is an obvious technical flaw which cannot be surmounted in this Amendment. But I suggest to him that the attitude of the Government on Part I of the Bill upon this question of dependent children is very largely responsible for the uneasiness in this Committee to-night upon this Clause, and I would press upon the Minister of Labour and upon the Parliamentary Secretary this fact: The Committee is profoundly uneasy about the children of the unemployed in this country at the present time, and with good reason, because there is ample evidence, of which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary must be well aware, that all over the country at the present time the children of the unemployed are under-nourished, to put it moderately.
It is false economy from any point of view to bring up under-nourished children, and in the long run it will not pay. Some people would go so far as to say, with my hon. Friend, that there are cases of something very like starvation. Be that as it may, I am certain that a vast majority of hon. Members take the view that 3½d. a day is insufficient on which to keep a child, and they are not quite satisfied in their own minds that that view is shared by the Government, and they think it should be shared by the Government. The Members of this Committee are not prepared to divest themselves of all responsibility in this matter, even although the Government are apparently prepared to do so. I can only say that I hope the Government will take note once again of the fact that the Committee is very uneasy about this business of dependent children's allowances, and if they do not see fit to modify their attitude on this Amendment, I hope they will observe what has been said with a view to reconsidering their position on the Report stage of the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: One would expect that after the expressions of opinion from all sides of the Committee, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would have risen to his feet. We want to give a lead to the Unemployment Assistance Board
as to what we in this House think are the needs of the children. The Parliamentary Secretary said that when the assessment of a household was considered, all the lot would be taken into account, and if we put in 3s. for the child, they might cut down the other members of the household. That may be so, but if we give a direct expression of opinion as to what we think ought to be the figure for certain members of the family, it is just possible that the assessment of the needs of the other members of the family may be increased also. If I were the Parliamentary Secretary, I would not hide myself behind that point, and if it is the intention of this House to give some direction to these people, I would let the Amendment be carried and let them understand how we feel on this matter. You cannot very well stand in the way of Members on all sides expressing themselves on this question. On Part I the same expression of opinion was made, but we were not able then to persuade the Government, and we can see now what is happening as a result of Members of their own party not having had the opportunity of getting what they thought proper then. To-night we are getting the same expressions of opinion and of deep feeling, hon. Members knowing very well what is happening in all unemployed families.
There is not a Member of the House of Commons who will attempt to justify, either here or anywhere else, 3½d. a day as sufficient for any child. If you agree with that, give a lead to these people as to what they ought to do, and I feel sure that that expression of opinion will have some weight with them, but if the Government Whips try to prevail over their Members by saying that it may lead to the defeat of the Government if they vote against them on this Amendment, they are saying to these people that the House of Commons is not in favour of the 3s. I trust that every Member on the Government side who feels with us on this point will not desert us but will give a vote in the Lobby for the Amendment. The hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) said he could have had the Order Paper filled twice over with names in support of the Amendment. I wish he had got all those names down, and that when he went into the Lobby everyone of those hon. Members would have voted according to what they thought on
this matter. I trust that they will not be deterred from carrying out their honest opinion if the Minister holds fast to not accepting the Amendment.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) have both adverted to an Amendment which was moved on Part I of the Bill and to uneasiness caused by the refusal of the Government to accept that Amendment. I am bound to say that I can see no connection whatever between that Amendment on Part I and the Amendment now before the Committee, and I think it would be the height of misfortune if we were to consider that there was any connection between the two Amendments. I rather doubt whether the Committee has yet fully appreciated the distinction between Part II and Part I of the Bill. I admit, of course, that there has been some impression in the mind of the country that assessments of need under Part II may perhaps bear some relation to sums payable under Part I, but I think that is an entirely false impression. It is one of the strongest points in favour of the Bill that it does lay down an entirely novel principle in regard to the assessment and relief of need. It is an entirely new thing, on a different principle from the old Poor Law, and I do not think there is any necessary connection with any rules that may be made under Part I. I entirely sympathise with the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) in moving the Amendment, but I do not think he was right in speaking, as he constantly did, of a specific rate of 2s., implying, I thought, that if the Amendment were not accepted, there would be some specific rate of 2s. which would be regarded as the normal idea of need for the child in the interpretation of this Clause.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Does not the hon. and learned Member really think that a figure of 2s. for each dependent child in Part I will influence the board in this connection?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: Not in the slightest. Why should it? I listened to the whole of the Debate on
the Amendment to which my hon. Friend referred on Part I, and never once did I hear anybody who resisted that Amendment even suggest that the 2s. was adequate for the maintenance of a child. Two shillings a week is 3½d. a day, and 3s. a week is 5d. a day, and if my hon. Friend attempted to lay down 3s. as an alternative, the arguments against his proposal would be only slightly less strong than those against the 2s.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are you in favour of it or against it, so that we shall know how to deal with you at the General Election?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR-WEDDERBURN: I can only say that under this Clause
the amount of any allowance to be granted under this Part of this Act to an applicant shall be determined by reference to his needs, including the needs of any members of the household of which he is a member.
Can we lay down a definition of the word "needs"? If we are to do so, it seems to be a rather dangerous thing to lay down a figure of 3s. as an appropriate definition of the weekly need of a child. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a minimum figure."] The hon. Member who recently spoke from the Front Bench, and who knows a great deal more about Poor Law than I do, referred to the danger of this Amendment, and the small experience I have of these matters has led me to fear that if you lay down a minimum it is always in danger of being interpreted as a maximum. On that ground alone I feel highly suspicious of this Amendment. I could not give any alternative figure which I should feel was open to no objections, and I do not see that it is within the province of this Clause to do so. If we find that the board lays down regulations which we believe are not sufficiently generous, it will then be in our power to discuss them. I am, however, very averse from any suggestion that we should now lay down a needs scale which in my judgment is inadequate to any particular category of the dependants who come under this Clause.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. STONES: I rise to support this Amendment proposed by the junior hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). I do so for many reasons. For many years,
I had a great deal to do with the administration of unemployment benefit as chairman of the Employment Exchange at Farnworth, and I also served on the public assistance committee of Farnworth, which is a branch of the Bolton Public Assistance Committee. I have, therefore, a wide experience of both these branches of administration. Knowing what I do of the unemployment that exists in my district, I feel that 3s., as has been stated, is little enough for a child. Although I shall do so reluctantly, I shall be compelled to go against the Government in the Lobby. I shall be bound to do so, because I have a clear conscience on this point. In my district there are 8,000 odd unemployed in a population of 30,000, and there are a tremendous number of children. There are 13 mills closed down to-day and four or five collieries, as the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) will tell us. You can see these people day by day labouring under extraordinary difficulties, unable to find the wherewithal to provide their children with the means to live comfortably and properly.
If we want an Al nation we must shape ourselves and see to it that we provide the material. I was chairman of a tribunal during the War, and we heard there a great deal about Al fitness and that the men whom we were sending were in class C3. We were told afterwards that we wanted an Al nation. If we want an Al nation, let us by all means see to it that we provide the means with which to make an Al nation. I have every reason to be grateful to the Minister of Labour; he has been kind to me, and so has the Parliamentary Secretary, on many occasions. I feel, nevertheless, that I am bound in honour to go into the Lobby against him on this point. I am sorry that this should occur, because I know that a good many of my supporters will not agree with me, but I am here with a clear conscience, feeling that what I am doing is the right thing.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I should like to say a word or two on the speech that has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Gentleman does not justify the sum of 2s., nor does he justify a sum of 3s. He said that neither sum was considered to be the standard of
maintenance for the child, or ever had been. What we are now considering is in the nature of an instruction, or at least of an advice, to the new Public Assistance Board, and the board, when it is set up, will have to rest its judgment either on Acts of Parliament or on expressions of opinion in Parliament. If its Members turn to Part I of the Act in an attempt to find evidence on which to base their judgment of what is the need of the householder, they will find that that part of it which concerns the child has been assessed by Parliament at 2s. They will find that in all the Employment Exchanges of the country to-day children are actually being paid—or at least their parents are being paid—unemployment benefit on the basis of 2s. Unless they can see some intimation from this House that hon. Members consider that 2s. is not enough, the natural thing for the board to believe is that, if the insured person who has paid his contributions and is in receipt of insurance can only receive under Part I 2s. for each child, Parliament expected it not to pay benefit for the child of that person, when he passes out of insurance, at a higher sum than 2s.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment put up an unanswerable case, and the Parliamentary Secretary was astute enough not to attempt to answer it. The case was that the man who has been unemployed for a period of not less than six months has used up his resources and also his benefits. During the whole of that period he has been living on a basis that the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech to-night said was not a basis of maintenance and was never meant to be one. Surely, if this scale which is assessed under Part I of the Act was never meant to be a maintenance scale and is in fact not a maintenance scale, the result of a continuation over a period of not less than six months on that basis must mean a physical deterioration in the family of that man and particularly in his children. When the time comes that the man is no longer able to receive insurance benefit and comes to the board for consideration, he and his children will then be in such a physical condition that they are inferior to the ordinary employed man and his children.
The question therefore appears to me to be one of humanity or brutality. The
humane man will say that the unemployed men and their children have had a very trying time and that they have been through a terrible experience for which they are in no way responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary says that we do not profess to provide them with a scale of maintenance. We have provided them for six months with a scale of benefit which includes 2s. for each child, and when at the end of that time a man goes to the Assistance Board, the humane person would say that in view of his trying experience during that long period of unemployment it is probable that his children's physical condition will be at a very low state, and that when the assessment of the needs of the household is being made by the Assistance Board they should assess each of the children's need at not less than 3s.
Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask, and I am surprised at the flippant way in which the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the moving speech of the Mover of the Amendment. He seems to take it as a joke, and he is laughing at it now. I live among these children—perhaps he does not—and I see the physical deterioration of the children of the unemployed every day of my life. I see it among the children of my own friends. I remember the births of some of them, and I remember them going to school; I have seen the father fall out of work and the deterioration of the children that has followed. I advise the Parliamentary Secretary to read the report of the Ministry of Health on the condition of children in the schools. He will find that as a consequence of continued long unemployment there is serious physical deterioration among the children. [Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot hear what the hon. Member says if other hon. Members are continually talking.

Mr. McENTEE: I protest against the flippant way in which the Amendment was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have heard somebody say to-day that the Minister is very sympathetic towards the children. I hope he is and that he will show his sympathy. If the Amendment is badly worded, he knows how to get over it. If it is not in the right form the Minister knows that its intention is to raise the standard of the children of the unemployed man who has
ceased to be in insurance or who has not been in insurance. I hope that the Minister will say, in view of the generally expressed opinion of so many Members of all parties that the accepted standard is too low, that he will put down an Amendment for the Report stage to meet the purposes of this Amendment. The people generally will praise his action. If this Amendment were left to a free vote, there would be a majority for it.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. CURRY: The Committee is under an obligation to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, if only because it allows the Committee to take a second look at the decision arrived at during the discussion on this point in Part I. I rather gathered from the speech of the hon. Member and the speeches on the opposite side that the real objective of the Mover is to prevent the board and its officers regarding the 2s. which was inserted in Part I as the considered opinion of the House of Commons as to what is required to maintain or to assist in the maintenance of a child. I listened with great interest to the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary—a reply of great ability. It was the first acknowledgment Which I have heard from him as to the general practice which prevails in the assessment of need. It is true that it is possible under this Amendment that, although the child's need may be assessed in that way, the household may not benefit. That is the danger of the Amendment, and, although the danger is there, the Front Bench can accept the Amendment without very great risk.
The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) told us that if we insert in the Bill the minimum 3s. it will in practice become the maximum. How can that argument be maintained when we have already inserted 2s. in Part I? If the minimum of 3s. will become the maximum, it is logical that the minimum of 2s. will become the maximum unless the Amendment is accepted. I was carried away by the logical arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary, but, in view of what has been said by his own supporters, I feel that the balance of argument has been moved to the other side. It is essential for the House of Commons to remember that
once Part II leaves the House the effective control has gone from us, and, if we leave it possible for the officers of the board to point not merely to the decision of the House of Commons on Part I, but to the fact that we rejected an Amendment to increase the amount in Part II, we shall make the tendency of the administration to err on the side of caution and of a continuation of the under-assessment of need in regard to children.
I have stated over and over again in the House that there is going on in the unemployed population an undermining of health, not so much of the children, as of the mothers, because of this allowance. The mother will not allow the child to suffer if she can help it, and all the examination that goes on in the schools does not reveal the real danger of the situation, which is that the vitality of the motherhood of this country is being undermined by these regulations. Therefore, I hope the Minister will see, especially after the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, that there is a danger in allowing this Amendment to be rejected, because that action will be construed by the officers on whom the work of administration will fall as emphasising the decision of the Committee when they passed the figure of 2s. in Part I. For those reasons we on these benches will support the Amendment if hon. Members take it to a Division, but I hope the Government will accept it.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. HUDSON: I do not wish the Committee, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry), to be under any misapprehension as to what I said. I am sure that, unwittingly, he was not doing me justice. I never suggested for one moment, and I do not think any hon. Members who heard me could have been left under that impression, that if this Amendment were rejected it would have any influence on the officers in deciding what ought or ought not to be the figure. What will happen, what I was pleading for, was that the board should be given a free hand to lay down their own figure in the regulations, and I specifically pointed out that until this House had affirmatively approved those regulations they would not come into operation. Therefore, the fears expressed by the hon. Member for
Bishop Auckland certainly cannot arise out of anything that I have said.

Mr. CURRY: In accepting the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary I wish to say that I had no desire to misrepresent him. I think he did not follow the break which I made in my speech when I transferred my affections, for the time being only, to an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I venture to ask the Minister not to turn a deaf ear to the many appeals made to him, and to remember that, in the main, they have come from his best supporters, and especially from those who represent industrial constituencies and have a knowledge of industrial conditions. That is a fact which I trust he will not overlook. It is quite clear that the mass of the Committee is agreed on two propositions. The first of them cannot be more simply expressed than in the words of the famous declaration of Geneva on the rights of the children—that a child must be given the means requisite for its normal development. On every ground, moral, economic and political, we recognise the wisdom of that proposition. No one can foresee the mischief that will occur to a nation which disregards that elementary rule. It is of very wide application, and I sometimes wonder whether a large number of persons do not now realise what fools we were to allow the child population of Germany to be undernourished after the War. We then sowed a crop, and for many generations we shall bitterly regret it.
The second proposition on which the Committee seem to be absolutely agreed is equally obvious, namely, that we cannot provide the average child with a minimum of food and clothing at a figure of less than 3s. a week. If we are agreed on that there remains the simple problem of whether it is wise to express those propositions in this Bill or not. We hold strongly that it is important to segregate the child from the general problem of allowances, but whether it is best done in this Bill or not is a matter reasonably open to argument. We have been told that to put a figure in the Bill when there are no other figures of any kind in it is to introduce a dangerous standardisation, because the minimum figure tends not only to be a standard
figure but very often the maximum. I suppose that is the oldest argument in relation to the question of minimum standards which we hear in this House. I remember it first on the Bill dealing with the miners' minimum wage in 1912, it occurred again in connection with the Agricultural Wages Boards in 1917 and it crops up regularly whenever there is a suggestion for introducing a minimum figure into a Bill. It is a very powerful argument.
If the Minister would give an assurance that he would not approve any scale put before him in which a figure lower than 3s. was proposed for the children, I should prefer such a declaration of his intentions to a figure in the Bill. It is a declaration which he can give on his own responsibility. I do not want him even to bind his successor. I am quite prepared to accept his declaration for the first set of regulations which will be presented to this House. If he is not in a position to give us any declaration, if he says that the board must start de novo without instruction from this House, then I am afraid that on this occasion those of us who support this Amendment must really part company with him. We regard it as of the greatest importance for the protection of the children that Parliament should quite clearly affirm that 3s. is a minimum below which it is not prepared to go.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I understand that the Committee have been informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that this is an Amendment which will not achieve the object which my hon. Friend desires of giving 1s. extra to the children, but both he and the Minister must know very well that that is no answer to the point we put forward. The fact that an Amendment like this has been put on the Paper by supporters of the Government is in itself a sign and a warning not merely of opinion in the country but of what has happened to the children. For two years now we on these benches have complained of the means test. It was said that we were wrong, but it is now seen that £56,000,000 have been taken from the transitional payment people in two years, and the Committee cannot ignore the fact that that has resulted in a state of things where we have the chief medical association of this country declaring that masses
of the people have not a proper standard of life. First there was an investigation in Stockton, and the medical officer there said that if people lived in better houses they were going to have less food to eat. Then there came an investigation in Newcastle.
The Minister of Health, standing at that Box, told me that he did not accept those standards of judgment, did not accept the result of those investigations. Now we find ourselves in a position where the British Medical Association accept the statements of those two doctors on their investigations, and, because they have to some extent a public responsibility for the condition of the people, they have entered into a controversy with the Minister of Health as to how much a man can live on without almost starving to death. This resulted in consideration about the standard of health of the child. I believe, in spite of what has been stated by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, that the children of this country are suffering where the means test is in widespread operation. I will tell the Committee why I assume that. In my own part of the country we happen to have a Labour county council, and in increasing numbers we have had to give milk meals to the children for the past year or two. I am proud of the fact that we have been enabled to supplement the household incomes by something like 500,000 milk meals for children. That is sufficient indication that there is want in the homes where the means test is in operation.
Here is an opportunity. The Government say that there is not to be a destitution test such as has been operating in the past. If that is the truth, where can the Government start better than among the children? If they want the Committee and the country to believe that they are sincere, here is an opportunity for them to make a statement as to what they are going to do. Let them begin with the children. It is unnecessary to say that this is a clumsy Amendment. It is a clumsy Amendment, but it is not half as clumsy as the direct negative that has been given. We have played our part to-night in getting as full discussion upon this matter as possible. I am not concerned about party politics in this matter, and it is not any good the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division
of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) looking at me like that. I will give proof that I am not concerned about party politics. We are concerned, as one hon. Gentleman has already said, that during the War we had the shame of seeing a C3 population. Up and down the country, responsible people in the Government and in local councils were saying, "Never again," but the operation of the means test has made it quite clear, according to medical officers, that once more we are on the march to the C3 population. This is a test for a Government who mean business, and for every man and woman in this House who stand for human rights.

9.58 p.m.

Major PROCTER: I am very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell the Committee even approximately what this Amendment would actually cost. I admire the resolute way in which he at all times stands up for what he regards as right rather than for what would be popular. I know also that the Minister of Health has a real interest in the children as distinct from a political interest in them. It must be well known to the Ministry that they are making the position of the loyal supporters of the Government very difficult in the constituencies. We should do anything that we can to make clear the real intentions of the Government to raise the standard of life not only of the worker but of the workless. The Minister himself admitted just now, for the first time I understand, that there is a higher standard even than that which is expressed by this equivalent of 2s.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the Amendment he will see that the Bill would not be hurt in any way by the inclusion of these words. As a loyal supporter of this Government, I voted for 2s. in Part I of the Bill, because I realised that Part I is an insurance proposition and that it has to balance itself. If it were overweighted, there would follow the same disaster as was experienced in 1931. In Part I there is the principle of insurance which must at all costs be maintained, but in Part II we are dealing with those who, for a long time, have been faced with the hopelessness of their situation, and who look out on life's problems through a mist of tears. Their credit is gone, their friends know they have been
out of work for a long time, and they cannot get things which are necessary to sustain the lives of those for whom they are responsible. I ask the Minster if he will meet us in any way, so that it may be quite clear to the country that the Government are just as much interested in the welfare of the children as any Labour Member. If they will do that by adopting these words—in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, they will not affect the operation of the Clause—it will be a guide to the people at the Ministry, it will help the Government, it will help us, and above all, it will help the children in the land.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: Various hon. Members have spoken on this Amendment and told us about the distress they have seen in their own divisions, and even in their own homes. I represent a division where the percentage of unemployed is about as high as in any in the country. It comes nearer home to me than that, because some of my grandchildren are subject to these conditions and are receiving 2s. per week. Some of us know what is happening to those homes. The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, who made a clever debating speech, did not touch the essential point in regard to this Amendment. He said that they had never looked upon 2s. as the proper maintenance for a child, and he seemed to indicate that, because this Amendment was put down for 3s., they were going to look upon that sum as a proper standard of maintenance. That is not what the Amendment means, because neither 2s. nor 3s. is a proper maintenance standard for a child. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment argued that the Unemployment Assistance Board should have instructions from this House not to pay less than 3s. in respect of any child.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must interrupt the hon. Member for one moment to point out that the Amendment does not say "not to pay less than 3s. to any child," but proposes that the board shall not reckon the need of a child at less than 3s. It does not necessarily mean that the child gets paid.

Mr. CAPE: You have put the point, Captain Bourne, in better language than I could, but I think it comes to the same thing. When we were discussing the question whether the allowance should
be 2s. or 3s. in connection with Part I of the Bill, one of the arguments used by the Government was that the scheme was purely an insurance scheme, and it was not desired that the Statutory Committee which would be responsible for the financial administration of Part I should have as a legacy the duty of deciding what the allowance for children should be. We are now, however, outside Part I, and, consequently, there is no question of its being an insurance scheme, so that on that ground I think the Minister would be quite safe in handing on the provision proposed in this Amendment as an instruction to the new Unemployment Assistance Board.
Without going into the question of the effects of unemployment on the children, I would ask whether Parliament ought not to give a lead to the local authorities in this matter. Surely the time has come when Parliament should be prepared to say to this new authority that there should be a certain minimum allowance for these children. We have had Debate after Debate with regard to laying down what public assistance committees should disregard, and so on, and finally the Minister brought in a Bill to give a lead to them as to what they should do. While we did not agree with all that was in that Bill, we did agree that it was right to give such a lead. Surely, Parliament might on this occasion also take its courage in its hands and lay down, as a direct instruction from the House of Commons, what the board ought to do in this respect.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I think we all wish to attain the same object, namely, to ensure that, when the needs of persons who are under this part of the Bill come to be assessed, they shall be assessed at a figure which will result in payments sufficient to maintain all the persons concerned in good health. The question we have to decide at the moment is whether the Amendment before us helps or hinders that object. After listening to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, I cannot say that I think he made out his case. After all, the Bill might have set out to define in terms the word "need," just as it might have set out in terms a scale of allowances; but, in fact, neither has been done, both of these questions being left to the discretion of the board.
This Amendment asks that we should, while leaving the general definition of need to the board, lay down a partial definition or limit in respect of one particular item. That appears to me on the face of it to be most unwise. In particular it is open to the obvious objection that in such circumstances there is a risk that the minimum might become a maximum. I think that, having left the rest of the definition of need to the board, it would be very much better to leave this item also to their determination. I was struck, too, by the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). It is true that he said he would support the Amendment, but he showed from his own experience the risks that he saw in it. I hope that the Committee will not allow themselves to be swayed, by the natural sentiment that proposals of this kind always arouse, into agreeing to an Amendment which in my view could not accomplish the object which hon. Members have at heart, and might easily work against it.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that nearly everyone in the House takes the view that the 2s. which is now being paid, or even the 3s. suggested by this Amendment, is not adequate; but, nevertheless, it may be said that 3s. is better by 50 per cent. for the child than the 2s. I am not arguing whether the doctors are right or wrong, but I take it that the human instinct of the House is that at the present standards the child of an unemployed person is not sufficiently maintained. The House is now passing a new Bill, and wants to see that the child is properly maintained, or, at least, better maintained than is now the case. Experience under all Governments has shown that the present amount is not enough, and, in fashioning the new Bill, the House is called upon to say, before the Bill goes out of its hands, how it will provide that the children shall be better treated than before. It is not sufficient for the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scrymgeour-Wedderburn) to say that this board has powers. It has been found that the 2s. is not enough, and I would ask, what power is Parliament now going to give in order to make certain that the 2s. which has for so long been a fixed amount shall not by any
chance be the fixed amount for the future? That is the issue. If you leave it to the board, while they have the power to make it five or 10, they ought to have power to make it two, and the House of Commons ought to lay down a minimum figure.
The House of Commons says that a man who has served in the War and has a pension because he has certain disabilities needs a minimum standard of comfort, and it fixes a figure so that the ex-service man shall be exempt from the worst ravages of the means test. You do not say the board is wrong or that it is bad. You do not say the board would not treat the ex-service man decently, but you take certain steps to make sure, and you insert a limit for him. Similarly, under National Health Insurance, you say that, in the case of a man or woman who is sick, the first 7s. 6d. shall be exempt. You do not allow sickness beyond a certain minimum to pass from your control. You can take risks with the ex-service man and with the sick, but you cannot take any risks with the children. I have all along been a moderate politician. I take three because it is better than two. I would take four or five. When the Labour Government was in, we moved 5s., but I would have taken 3s. from them as a compromise. A man does not need to live with children from day to day to see that 2s. is not enough.
I give the House credit for wanting to do the right thing. They can fix standards for the Army and for the Navy and for the Empire. Surely it is not too much to ask this great House of Commons to fix a standard for the frailest and most defenceless section of the community. I remember someone saying during the mining strike: "The miners fight and the employers fight. I take no side in the dispute, but I make an appeal to keep the children out of the battle ground." Whatever you may fix for the unemployed let the House of Commons fix a figure which will remove the children from the battle ground.

10.19 p.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: I rather hope, despite the hon. Member's appeal, that we shall put no figure whatever into the Bill. We are letting the board assess the need because we know that one unemployed man does not pay the same rent
as another and that the cost of living may be higher on one side of the country than another. We are trying by the Amendment to cut right through that principle and say, whatever the rent may be, whatever part of the country a man may live in, we are to put down a standard minimum rate of benefit. It is a standard minimum rate for the whole of the country, although the standards may be absolutely different in one county compared with another and the rents completely different. You are allowing the board to look at the circumstances of every family to find out what amount of rent they have to pay and to assess their needs on the broad basis of the household, and for that reason we are asked to put down this standard rate all over the country, departing once and for all from the very good principle in this Bill. It is clear, and it has worked time and time again in this country, that when you put down a minimum rate it tends to become the maximum rate. We all know that, with regard to the Agricultural Wages Board and other matters of that sort, it always tends to become the maximum rate. If the Government in drafting this Bill had inserted a minimum figure of 3s. a week, what a tremendous outcry there would have been that 3s. was not enough for the children, but now they come along with a similar Amendment themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, they sup-supported the position pretty enthusiastically.

Mr. LOGAN: It is one of your own party.

Major LLEWELLIN: I realise that fact, but it is supported very strongly by hon. Members opposite. There would have been a tremendous outcry if it had been put into the Bill that the minimum should be 3s. per child. It is far better to leave the matter in the hands of the board. If you were to put in a minimum for each child, you would be justified in putting in a minimum for a man and a minimum for his wife as well, and, in fact, a minimum for everybody else who lived in the house. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is absurd; it is largely sentimental. It is not really the way to legislate for this country by putting in such an allowance as is asked for the children. The real thing to do, if we are to trust the board at all, and the
majority of the Committee are trusting the board, is to have confidence in it. The hon. Members over there who are supporting my hon. Friends do not trust the board at all. They would not have it if they could help it. We who support the Government are setting up the board, and in setting it up by our votes in this House, are we having confidence it it or are we not? If by our votes we support and set up the board, let us repose some confidence in it from the start and give it power to refer to the needs as is provided in the Bill. I would say to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there seems to be some difference in the point which he raised and the point of the need. There we are allowing a man not to return some of his means in the case of the ex-service man and his pension. He does not return the whole of his means. Some of his means are not taken into account. On the other hand, in this case we are trying to pass an Amendment to lay down a definition with regard to the needs.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member has not followed the point. If a man has a pension from the Army for long service, it is not exempt. There must be disability. He receives exemption because of his disability, or, in other words, because of his greater need in the same way as exemption is being asked in respect of a child.

Major LLEWELLIN: At any rate, you are exempting something which he has coming in. You are exempting half his disability pension, or half his weekly payment by way of pension. That has been more or less statutory.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It was statutory. It was left to the local authorities and it was because they were not doing justice that a figure was inserted.

Major LLEWELLIN: A figure having once been inserted it is kept in the Bill. We have never, as far as I know, inserted in the statutory conditions for local authorities a rate for children. That is sought to be done for the first time. I think it is far better to leave it at large for the board to decide. If it is found that the board is not doing what this House thinks right it will be a matter upon which pressure may be brought to bear upon various Ministers of Labour until, in the same way that was done in
the original case, a figure may be incorporated in the Act of Parliament. While we are putting our confidence in the board to carry out its duties I do ask the supporters of the Government to give their confidence to the board and to allow it a free hand in assessing the needs of families, wherever they are.

10.27 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I confess that I find it difficult to follow the logic of the argument placed before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member. On the next page of the Bill there is a list of items which are to be disregarded in assessing need. There is no question of minimum there. They are specific sums of money. The reasons why those exceptions have been inserted are pretty obvious. They fall under three heads and are relevant to the consideration of the Amendment. It is obvious that the reason why the first five shillings of sick pay is not counted is that the need of the applicant at a time of sickness is estimated to be greater than in the time of health. Pensions for wounds or disability are to be disregarded to a certain extent because of the source from which they are derived and the reason for which they are granted. The exemption of a certain amount of investment is on social grounds because the State has assumed that it is wise in the interests of the State that savings to a certain extent should not be brought into account. A reason which reinforces the argument for the Amendment is that it is socially desirable from the point of view of the State that at least a certain minimum should be introduced into the Statute.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in the very dexterous speech he made in reply to the opening speech of the Mover of the Amendment, said: "It does not very much matter whether you have this Amendment put into the Bill or not, because the ultimate position of the applicant may be no better after the Amendment than before." I am prepared to take the risk. I know that I cannot be worse off, and very likely I may be better off. It is true that very often the insertion of a minimum figure means that the minimum becomes the maximum, but I am prepared to face even that possibility because it will still be a figure 50 per cent. above the present
maximum. Although no figure is laid down I believe it is the almost universal practice for 2s. to be regarded as the maximum for a child, so that this minimum, even if it becomes a maximum, will mean that the children will be 50 per cent. better off than they were before. The hon. Member rather sneered at hon. Members because they voted against the Amendment brought forward in the last Parliament by Miss Jennie Lee. I am almost alone of present Members of the House who went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his colleagues on that Amendment—

Mr. COCKS: So did I, and other hon. Members.

Major NATHAN: The same considerations which influenced me on that occasion again influence me to support the Amendment. I am not prepared to say that, in the part of London which I know best, the physical health of the children has much deteriorated, but I do say, and the Parliamentary Secretary will find it recorded by local medical officers of health, that the maternal mortality has grown so great during the period of unemployment that it is comparable to the worst years of this century. This is attributed to the fact that mothers in that particular locality have been prepared to sacrifice themselves, and weaken themselves, in order that their children shall not suffer. For that reason alone this figure should be supported. The Committee will be well advised to insert it in the Bill, either in the words of the Amendment or, if they are not appropriate, in words which the Minister can bring forward on Report stage. I do not think that the reference to the 2s. in Part I of the Bill and the Debate which took place, is at all irrelevant, because the board in allocating relief, in assessing need, under Part II will be bound, consciously or unconsciously, to have regard to the figure of 2s. in the first part of the Bill. I want to see it made abundantly clear by inserting a minimum of 3s. that there is no association between the needs to be assessed under this part of the Bill, and the specified allowance for children under Part I of the Bill.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. RADFORD: I should like to add my appeal to the Government to accept
the Amendment or at least to undertake that on the Report stage they will give effect to it in possibly more suitable language and perhaps in a better place in the Bill. I was not at all impressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) when he referred to the 3s. minimum as a figure which should not be fixed in the Bill in view of the varying cast of living in different parts of the country. You cannot find any part of the country, even that part where the living is cheapest and clothing is cheapest, where 3s. would be too much. I know that my hon. Friend did not suggest that it was too much, but he said it was undesirable to fix a minimum of 3s. for the whole country in view of the fact that conditions vary so much. The wording of the Amendment provides ample latitude for those differences.
I do not think the Government realised how painful it was to many of us, when we were dealing with the question of children's allowance under Part I, to vote as we did against their increase to 3s. For my own part I did it because we were dealing with the insurance part of the Bill, and in dealing with a figure which was not regarded as being the need of a child but as what the insurance fund could afford, we could not allow sentiment to enter and upset the whole equilibrium. But here we are dealing with something different, not with the insurance fund but with unemployment assistance. Why should we leave the matter to the Unemployment Assistance Board without any expression of opinion from this House? Why should we leave the whole of it to the board? The Parliamentary Secretary said that when the board makes the regulations, the regulations will have to be submitted to this House and that the House will have an opportunity of expressing its views as to the adequacy or otherwise of the various allowances. I should imagine that when the regulations come forward they may be very voluminous, and it may be that we shall be again confronted with a Guillotine Motion and have no opportunity of expressing any views on the children's allowance or other allowances.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Boothby) expressed the view that the House was getting very uneasy as to the Government's attitude on this question of the adequacy or other-
wise of the children's allowance. I would go further and say that the whole country is getting uneasy. It is very painful for many of us who have spent a good part of our lives doing what we can to help children, to receive letters from ministers of religion, from charitable bodies and organisations that are trying to do good, and to find that they are apparently regarding us s a lot of cold-blooded heartless machines who think that the 2s. allowances, which is all that insurance is providing, is adequate for the maintenance of a child. I appeal to the Government, if they do not accept the Amendment, at least to give us some assurance that, although they may regard it as unnecessary, they will give effect to the spirit of it on the Report stage and so tell the country that they are not heedless of the needs of the children.

Mr. LAWSON: Are we going to have the Government reply to-night? We ought to have it if possible.

10.39 p.m

Sir H. BETTERTON: Believe me I am under no doubt or misapprehension as to the strong feeling in the Committee on this question, and let me say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself are just as anxious and just as determined to get a humane administration of this business as is anyone in the Committee. It is just because I am more than anxious that I am convinced that this Amendment, so far from achieving the end aimed at, would gravely endanger and prejudice it. We are asked to insert a minimum of 3s. per week in respect of each dependent child. The hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) said he was prepared to take the risk of that 3s. being regarded as a maximum. I am not. I believe if you put in this 3s. it will inevitably be regarded as a maximum, and I am not prepared to say that 3s. is an adequate amount for a growing boy of 12 or 13 years. I am not going to take the risk of the board being led to the conclusion to which they would necessarily be led if that figure were inserted.
I say that you must regard the income of the household as a whole and if you put in 3s. here you will not in the least be achieving your end. On the other hand, as I have said, you may prejudice it. I have been asked to give an assurance that I would not approve of any
figure less than 3s. How far would that take you? It would not take you any way at all. Suppose I say that I will not approve of a figure less than 3s. for a child at the same time leaving all the rest of the scale open, it would not take you any way at all. I have observed an anxiety in all parts of the Committee lest what took place the other night on Part I of the Bill would be regarded by the board as a precedent for them to follow under Part II. That point was urged with great force by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) among others. I was not present when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary spoke on this matter, but he tells me that he assured the Committee over and over again that there is no connection at all between the rates of benefit under Part I of the Bill and the assessment under Part II.
I give that assurance also, but, if the Committee prefer it, I will insert in subsequent stages of the Bill an Amendment giving an assurance to that effect. Of course, I have not the exact words here, but I will insert an assurance to the effect that the assessment under Part II shall not necessarily be governed by the rates of benefit under Part I. That will put into the Statute itself the assurance for which hon. Members have asked. But I am certain that the Committee would be very ill advised to accept the Amendment. So far from having the results which they desire, it would in all probability go very far towards defeating their object. I would, in conclusion, remind the Committee that the House of Commons will yet have control in this matter. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Curry) said that all control had gone and that no safeguard remained in regard to administration. That is not so, because it is carefully provided in the Bill that the regulations which govern this matter shall be approved by the House by an affirmative Resolution.

Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether such a Resolution will be susceptible to amendment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. and gallant Member knows the answer to that question before he asks it. The whole of this discussion to-night would have been much more appropriate to the
Debate on the regulations. But with the assurance that I have given, that I will see to it that there will be no connection between the benefits under Part I and the discretion of this House with regard to Part II, I hope the Committee will be satisfied.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide! divide!

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I have spent practically every moment on this bench since this Bill started, and up to the present I have not spoken for five minutes, and I am prepared to wait until the shouting dies down in order to say one or two words. So far as the Minister's promise is concerned, it means a promise of absolutely nothing. The whole purpose of the Government resisting this Amendment is this, that if they give way on this Amendment, they know that logically they must increase the benefit under Part I also to each child. Surely, we are not going to suggest that any person under an insurance scheme will be worse off than a person under Part II.

Mr. RADFORD: Does the hon. Member overlook the fact that under Part I there is no need test, but that under Part II there will be a need test?

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am saying that if we pass this Amendment giving an instruction to the board that they shall assess the need of a child at not less than 3s., it will mean that it would have to be 3s. under Part I, because no one would say that the child of an insured person had any less need than the child of a person under this part of the Bill.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I think the hon. Member is overlooking one important point, and that is that the resources granted under Part I can be supplemented by the assistance granted under Part II.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I am not overlooking that at all, and if this Amendment were carried, it would help and not hinder that supplementation. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) spoke about sentiment. This House seems always to resent that word "sentiment," but I sug-
gest that it is absolutely cheap sentiment to say that every Member of the Committee desires that a child should have absolute sustenance and at the same time to resist a minimum of 3s. in order to enable that child to enjoy that sustenance. It is not sentiment that we are talking. We are laying it down that there should be a minimum of 3s. for the assessment of need of a child. Call that sentiment if you like, but I call it far more practical than making the statement here that you desire every child to be well nourished and then refusing to vote for a minimum of 3s. to sustain that child. I hope hon. Members will not be misled either by the Minister of Labour or by the Parliamentary Secretary in a promise which means absolutely nothing, but will vote according to their conscience to lay down a minimum of 3s. as the need of a child.

10.50 p.m.

Viscountess ASTOR: I feel that if the Minister were to accept this Amendment, he would help the future of the board. He said that the board naturally would not want a lot of guidance, but I am sure they will want some guidance. I was interested when the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), in his speech, turned and told us that the proposal had nothing to do with politics. I was thinking at that moment how his party had used this as political propaganda. I remember his speaking, when we were first getting a shilling a head for the children; the Labour party said that the Tories believed that a shilling a head was enough for a child. We never said that; we said it was better than nothing. The Labour party came in and gave two shillings a head, and the very hon. Member who turned with such passion just now was the Member who resisted the proposal to give two shillings. [Interruption.] You cannot keep this question out of politics as long as you have the Labour party going round the country.
This is one of the things that the Minister has to bear in mind. It is all very well talking about keeping this question
out of politics; you cannot keep it out. You have a Government now who are doing far more for the children than any Government has ever done before. We ask the Minister not to put us in the position of having to go into the Lobby against him with people who only gave the children a shilling a head, and who, if they had remained in office, would not have given the children even that. Some of us feel very strongly about this matter. The Minister knows better than anyone in the country that at this moment 27 per cent. of the children who enter our elementary schools are physically defective in some way. If they were in a bad way when Labour was in, some of them are in a worse way now. It is not true that the children are nearly starving, but they are in a far worse way than they were two or three years ago.
I do not want to make it embarrassing for the Minister, but I say that he has put us in a difficulty by not accepting this Amendment. The whole of the House is with us, and this House should lay down to the board that three shillings a week is a minimum that every child should have. Everybody knows, as the Minister said, that the board will not lay down a figure; why should the House, therefore, not lay one down? Nobody believes for a moment that a child can be kept on three shillings a week, but we know that, unless this House gives a definite lead, the Labour people will go through the country saying that the National Government would not give the children three shillings a week. We want the National Government to go a shilling better than the Labour party. We plead with the Minister, who has done so well and has shown himself in such rare sympathy with the unemployed, to accept this Amendment and save many of us from going into the Lobby with people who did not like even to give the children two shillings.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 177.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Brass, Captain Sir William


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Banfield, John William
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, George


Allan, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bernays, Robert
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Aske, Sir Robert William
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cape, Thomas


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bracken, Brendan
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour




Cove, William G.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Paling, Wilfred


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainab'ro)
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Peat, Charles U.


Daggar, George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Radford, E. A.


Dickie, John P.
Kirkwood, David
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Dobbie, William
Knight, Holford
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, Charles
Law, Sir Alfred
Rea, Walter Russell


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Robinson, John Roland


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lawson, John James
Salt, Edward W.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leckie, J. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lees-Jones, John
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Soper, Richard


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Logan, David Gilbert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stones, James


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mabane, William
Storey, Samuel


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Templeton, William P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).
Magnay, Thomas
Thompson, Sir Luke


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mainwaring, William Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
White, Henry Graham


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James
Wilmot, John


Harbord, Arthur
Milner, Major James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Harris, Sir Percy
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale



Hepworth, Joseph
Nathan, Major H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hicks, Ernest George
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sir John Haslam and Mr. J. P. Morris.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nunn, William





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Atholl, Duchess of
Eady, George H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Eastwood, John Francis
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Elmley, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bateman, A. L
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portms'th, C.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gibson, Charles Granville
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Gledhill, Gilbert
Moreing, Adrian C.


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Munro, Patrick


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, Terence James


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hanbury, Cecil
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burghley, Lord
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Burnett, John George
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Penny, Sir George


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Petherick, M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Christle, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pybus, Sir Percy John


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsden, Sir Euge[...]


Colman, N. C. D.
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Remer, John R.


Craven-Ellis, William
Ker, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, Oswald
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, Walter S.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Llewellin, Major John J.
Ross, Ronald D.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duckworth, George A. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. C. (Partick)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart




Scone, Lord
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wells, Sydney Richard


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smith, R. W. (Abard'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Womersley, Walter James


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Train, John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spens, William Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh
Mr. Blindell and Lord Erskine.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.